40154 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Letters 

Weight not over Price groups 

(oz.) 1 2 3–5 6–9 

7 ....................................................................................................................................................... 4.03 7.23 9.00 8.64 

8 ....................................................................................................................................................... 4.27 7.99 10.06 9.64 

12 ..................................................................................................................................................... 5.45 9.64 12.20 11.73 

15.994 .............................................................................................................................................. 6.63 11.31 14.33 13.80 

International Extra Services and Fees 

The Postal Service price increase for 

certain market dominant international 

extra services is as follows: 

• Certificate of Mailing 

• Registered MailTM

• Return Receipt 

• Customs Clearance and Delivery Fee 

• International Business ReplyTM Mail 

Service 

Certificate of Mailing 

Fee 

Individual pieces: 

Individual article (PS Form 3817) ................................................................................................................................................. $1.65 

Duplicate copy of PS Form 3817 or PS Form 3665 (per page) .................................................................................................. 1.65 

Firm mailing sheet (PS Form 3665), per piece (minimum 3) ......................................................................................................

First-Class Mail International only ................................................................................................................................................ 0.47 

Bulk quantities: ........................

For first 1,000 pieces (or fraction thereof) ................................................................................................................................... 9.35 

Each additional 1,000 pieces (or fraction thereof) ....................................................................................................................... 1.20 

Duplicate copy of PS Form 3606 ................................................................................................................................................. 1.65 

Registered Mail 

Fee: $17.15. 

Return Receipt 

Fee: $4.75. 

Customs Clearance and Delivery 

Fee: per piece $7.05. 

International Business Reply Service 

Fee: Cards $1.75; Envelopes up to 2 

ounces $2.25. 

New prices will be listed in the 

updated Notice 123, Price List. 

Joshua J. Hofer, 

Attorney, Ethics & Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15958 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 236 

[Docket No. FRA–2019–0075, Notice No. 2] 

RIN 2130–AC75 

Positive Train Control Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: FRA is revising its regulations 

governing changes to positive train 

control (PTC) systems and reporting on 

PTC system performance. First, 

recognizing that the railroad industry 

intends to enhance FRA-certified PTC 

systems to continue improving rail 

safety and PTC technology’s reliability 

and operability, FRA is modifying the 

process by which a host railroad must 

submit a request for amendment (RFA) 

to FRA before making certain changes to 

its PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP) and FRAcertified PTC system. Second, to enable 

more effective FRA oversight, this final 

rule: Expands an existing reporting 

requirement by increasing the frequency 

from annual to biannual; broadens the 

reporting requirement to encompass 

positive performance-related 

information, including about the 

technology’s positive impact on rail 

safety, not just failure-related 

information; and requires host railroads 

to utilize a new, standardized report 

form. 

DATES: This final rule is effective August 

26, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to https://

www.regulations.gov at any time and 

search for Docket No. FRA–2019–0075. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gabe Neal, Deputy Staff Director, Signal, 

Train Control, and Crossings Division, 

telephone: 816–516–7168, email: 

Gabe.Neal@dot.gov; or Stephanie 

Anderson, Attorney Adviser, telephone: 

202–493–0445, email: 

Stephanie.Anderson@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Supplementary 

Information 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Background and Public Participation 

A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC 

Regulations 

B. Public Participation Prior to the 

Issuance of the NPRM 

C. Introduction to Comments on the NPRM 

III. Summary of the Main Provisions in the 

Final Rule 

A. Establishing a New Process for 

Modifying FRA-Certified PTC Systems 

and the Associated PTCSPs 

B. Expanding the Performance-Related 

Reporting Requirements 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive 

Order 13272; Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Federalism Implications 

E. International Trade Impact Assessment 

F. Environmental Impact 

G. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 

Justice) 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

I. Energy Impact 

I. Executive Summary 

Section 20157 of title 49 of the United 

States Code (U.S.C.) mandates each 

Class I railroad, and each entity 

providing regularly scheduled intercity 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40155 

1Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public 

Law 110–432, 104(a), 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 2008), 

as amended by the Positive Train Control 

Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, 

Public Law 114–73, 129 Stat. 568, 576–82 (Oct. 29, 

2015), and the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act, Public Law 114–94, section 

11315(d), 129 Stat. 1312, 1675 (Dec. 4, 2015), 

codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157. See also 

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 236, 

subpart I. 

2 49 U.S.C. 20157(g)(1), (i)(5); 49 CFR 236.1005 

(setting forth the technical specifications). 3The infographics on FRA’s PTC website (https:// 

railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/positive-traincontrol-ptc) identify 41 railroads subject to the 

statutory mandate as of December 31, 2020, but six 

of those 41 railroads are tenant-only commuter 

railroads. As this final rule primarily focuses on 

requirements specific to host railroads, this final 

rule references the current number of PTCmandated host railroads (35) and any host railroads 

that may either become subject to the statutory 

mandate or voluntarily implement PTC systems in 

the future. Section V (Regulatory Impact and 

Notices) estimates this final rule and FRA’s PTC 

regulations in general will apply, on average, to 1.5 

additional host railroads per year. 

4Except a railroad’s controlling locomotives or 

cab cars that are subject to either a temporary or 

permanent exception under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)–(k) 

or 49 CFR 236.1006(b), Equipping locomotives 

operating in PTC territory. 

5Federal Railroad Administration, FRA 

Announces Landmark Achievement with Full 

Implementation of Positive Train Control (Dec. 29, 

2020), available at https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/ 

fra.dot.gov/files/2020-12/fra1920.pdf. 

6 ‘‘Interoperability’’ is the general requirement 

that the controlling locomotives and cab cars of any 

host railroad and tenant railroad operating on the 

same main line must communicate with and 

respond to the PTC system, including uninterrupted 

movements over property boundaries, except as 

otherwise permitted by law. 49 U.S.C. 

20157(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (a)(2)(D), (i)(3), (j)–(k); 49 CFR 

236.1003, 236.1006, 236.1011(a)(3). 

7For purposes of FRA’s PTC regulations, a host 

railroad is ‘‘a railroad that has effective operating 

control over a segment of track,’’ and a tenant 

railroad is ‘‘a railroad, other than a host railroad, 

operating on track upon which a PTC system is 

required.’’ 49 CFR 236.1003(b). 

8Currently, the following PTC systems are in 

operation in the United States: (1) The Interoperable 

Electronic Train Management System (I–ETMS), 

which Class I railroads and many commuter 

railroads have fully implemented; (2) the Advanced 

Civil Speed Enforcement System II (ACSES II) or 

the Advanced Speed Enforcement System II (ASES 

II), the PTC system most railroads operating on the 

Northeast Corridor (NEC) have fully implemented; 

(3) Enhanced Automatic Train Control (E–ATC), 

which five host railroads have fully implemented; 

(4) the Incremental Train Control System, which the 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

has fully implemented in parts of Michigan; and (5) 

the Communication Based Train Control (CBTC) 

system, which one commuter railroad has fully 

implemented. 

9 49 CFR 236.1009, 236.1015. 

10 85 FR 82400 (Dec. 18, 2020). 

11A copy of the form is available in the 

rulemaking docket. 

12Net Benefits = (Industry Business Benefits + 

Government Savings)¥Industry Costs. 

or commuter rail passenger 

transportation, to implement an FRAcertified PTC system on: (1) its main 

lines over which poison- or toxic-byinhalation hazardous materials are 

transported, if the line carries five 

million or more gross tons of any annual 

traffic; (2) its main lines over which 

intercity or commuter rail passenger 

transportation is regularly provided; and 

(3) any other tracks the Secretary of 

Transportation (Secretary) prescribes by 

regulation or order.1 By law, PTC 

systems must be designed to prevent 

certain accidents or incidents, including 

train-to-train collisions, over-speed 

derailments, incursions into established 

work zones, and movements of trains 

through switches left in the wrong 

position.2

Currently, 35 host railroads— 

including 7 Class I railroads, 23 

intercity passenger railroads or 

commuter railroads, and 5 Class II or III, 

short line, or terminal railroads—are 

directly subject to the statutory 

mandate.3 The statutory mandate 

generally required that by December 31, 

2020, FRA-certified and interoperable 

PTC systems must govern operations on 

all PTC-mandated main lines, currently 

encompassing nearly 58,000 route miles 

nationwide.4 49 U.S.C. 20157(a); 49 CFR 

236.1005(b)(6)–(7). 

On December 29, 2020, FRA 

announced that railroads had fully 

implemented PTC technology on all 

PTC-mandated main lines.5 As of that 

date, railroads reported that 

interoperability 6 had been achieved 

between the applicable host railroads 

and tenant railroads that operate on 

PTC-mandated main lines, which 

included 209 interoperable host-tenant 

railroad relationships as of December 

2020.7 Furthermore, as required under 

49 U.S.C. 20157(h), FRA approved each 

host railroad’s PTCSP and certified that 

each PTC system 8 complied with the 

technical requirements for PTC systems 

under FRA’s regulations.9

Through FRA’s nine PTC Symposia 

and Collaboration Sessions, from 2018 

to 2020, and other regular coordination 

with railroads implementing PTC 

systems, PTC system vendors and 

suppliers, and other stakeholders, FRA 

proactively identified aspects of FRA’s 

existing PTC regulations that could 

impede either PTC-related innovation or 

FRA’s oversight, after the statutory 

deadline of December 31, 2020. 

Accordingly, on December 18, 2020, 

FRA issued a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend its PTC 

regulations to modify two regulatory 

provisions, 49 CFR 236.1021 and 

236.1029(h), which, if not revised, 

would impede the industry’s ability to 

advance PTC technology efficiently and 

FRA’s ability to oversee the performance 

and reliability of PTC systems 

effectively.10 FRA received seven sets of 

written comments in response to that 

NPRM, which were generally supportive 

of FRA’s proposals. FRA responds to 

these seven sets of comments in 

Sections II (Background and Public 

Participation) and IV (Section-bySection Analysis) of this final rule. 

Based on the comments received, FRA 

is revising its PTC regulations in two 

ways. First, FRA is issuing this final 

rule to streamline the process under 49 

CFR 236.1021 for RFAs to PTCSPs for 

FRA-certified systems. This revised RFA 

process requires host railroads to 

provide certain documentation, 

analysis, and safety assurances in a 

concise RFA. This final rule also 

establishes a 45-day deadline for FRA to 

review and approve or deny railroads’ 

RFAs to their FRA-approved PTCSPs or 

FRA-certified PTC systems. In addition, 

this final rule permits host railroads 

utilizing the same type of PTC system to 

submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs and 

PTC Development Plans (PTCDPs). 

Second, FRA is expanding an existing 

reporting requirement—49 CFR 

236.1029(h), Annual report of system 

failures—by increasing the frequency of 

the reporting requirement from annual 

to biannual; broadening the reporting 

requirement to encompass positive 

performance-related information, not 

just failure-related information; and 

requiring host railroads to utilize a new, 

standardized Biannual Report of PTC 

System Performance (Form FRA F 

6180.152) 11 to enable more effective 

FRA oversight. In addition, FRA is 

amending § 236.1029(h) by updating the 

provision to use certain statutory 

terminology for consistency; clarifying 

the ambiguous filing obligation by 

specifying that only host railroads 

directly submit these reports to FRA; 

and explicitly requiring tenant railroads 

to provide the necessary data to their 

applicable host railroads. 

FRA analyzed the economic impact of 

this final rule over a ten-year period and 

estimated its quantitative costs and 

benefits, which are shown in the table 

below. The business benefits associated 

with FRA’s revisions to § 236.1021—i.e., 

to simplify the process for all RFAs to 

PTCSPs and authorize host railroads to 

file joint RFAs to PTCSPs and 

PTCDPs—will outweigh the costs 

associated with FRA’s expansion of the 

reporting requirement under paragraph 

(h) of § 236.1029. This final rule will 

also result in savings for the federal 

government. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40156 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

13Public Law 110–432, 122 Stat. 4848 (Oct. 16, 

2008), codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 20157(g). 

14 75 FR 2598 (Jan. 15, 2010). 

15 75 FR 59108 (Sept. 27, 2010); 77 FR 28285 

(May 14, 2012); 79 FR 49693 (Aug. 22, 2014); 81 

FR 10126 (Feb. 29, 2016). 

16All presentations from FRA’s PTC 

Collaboration Sessions are available in FRA’s 

eLibrary, including direct links on FRA’s PTC 

website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ 

ptc/positive-train-control-ptc. 

17 85 FR 82400, 82403–04 (Dec. 18, 2020). 

18 85 FR 82400 (Dec. 18, 2020). 

NET BENEFITS IN MILLIONS

[2019 Dollars] 

Present value 

7% 

Present value 

3% 

Annualized 

7% 

Annualized 

3% 

Industry Costs .......................................................................................... ($1.52) ($1.75) ($0.22) ($0.21) 

Industry Business Benefits ...................................................................... 6.12 7.20 0.87 0.84 

Government Savings ............................................................................... 17.98 21.19 2.56 2.48 

Net Benefits 12 .................................................................................. 22.58 26.64 3.21 3.12 

* Note: Table may not sum due to rounding. 

In addition to the quantified benefits 

in the table above, FRA expects this 

final rule will also result in safety 

benefits for the railroad industry. For 

example, this final rule will enable 

railroads to deploy PTC-related safety 

improvements and technological 

advancements more efficiently and 

frequently, under an expedited RFA 

process, and the expanded reporting 

requirement will help railroads and 

FRA identify systemic failures more 

quickly and precisely, enabling swifter 

intervention and resolution. 

II. Background and Public Participation 

A. Legal Authority To Prescribe PTC 

Regulations 

Section 104(a) of the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 required the 

Secretary of Transportation to prescribe 

PTC regulations necessary to implement 

the statutory mandate, including 

regulations specifying the essential 

technical functionalities of PTC systems 

and the means by which FRA certifies 

PTC systems.13 The Secretary delegated 

to the Federal Railroad Administrator 

the authority to carry out the functions 

and exercise the authority vested in the 

Secretary by the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008. 49 CFR 

1.89(b). 

In accordance with its authority under 

49 U.S.C. 20157(g) and 49 CFR 1.89(b), 

FRA issued its first final PTC rule on 

January 15, 2010, which is set forth, as 

amended, under 49 CFR part 236, 

subpart I, Positive Train Control 

Systems.14 FRA’s PTC regulations under 

49 CFR part 236, subpart I, prescribe 

‘‘minimum, performance-based safety 

standards for PTC systems . . . 

including requirements to ensure that 

the development, functionality, 

architecture, installation, 

implementation, inspection, testing, 

operation, maintenance, repair, and 

modification of those PTC systems will 

achieve and maintain an acceptable 

level of safety.’’ 49 CFR 236.1001(a). 

FRA subsequently amended its PTC 

regulations via final rules issued in 

2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016.15

In this final rule, FRA revises three 

sections, 49 CFR 236.1003, 236.1021, 

and 236.1029, of FRA’s existing PTC 

regulations pursuant to its specific 

authority under 49 CFR 1.89 and 49 

U.S.C. 20157(g), and its general 

authority under 49 U.S.C. 20103 to 

prescribe regulations and issue orders 

for every area of railroad safety. 

B. Public Participation Prior to the 

Issuance of the NPRM 

FRA regularly engages with host 

railroads, tenant railroads, and PTC 

system vendors and suppliers, as part of 

FRA’s oversight of railroads’ 

implementation of PTC systems on the 

mandated main lines under 49 U.S.C. 

20157 and the other lines where 

railroads are voluntarily implementing 

PTC technology. This included multiple 

PTC Collaboration Sessions in 2019 and 

2020.16 For a detailed discussion 

regarding these sessions and other 

public participation prior to FRA’s 

issuance of the NPRM, please see 

Section II–B of the NPRM.17 The 

provisions in this final rule are based on 

FRA’s own review and analysis, 

industry’s feedback in 2019 and 2020 

before publication of the NPRM, and the 

comments received on the NPRM. 

C. Introduction to Comments on the 

NPRM 

FRA received seven sets of comments 

from several associations, railroads, and 

individuals in response to the NPRM 

FRA published on December 18, 2020.18

FRA lists here the comments it received 

in reverse chronological order. On 

February 16, 2021, the Association of 

American Railroads (AAR) and the 

American Short Line and Regional 

Railroad Association (ASLRRA) jointly 

filed comments on behalf of themselves 

and their member railroads. On 

February 16, 2021, the American Public 

Transportation Association (APTA) 

submitted comments on behalf of itself, 

its member organizations, and the 

commuter rail industry. Furthermore, 

on February 16, 2021, Amtrak and New 

Jersey Transit (NJT) submitted their own 

respective comments, noting that they 

also support AAR and ASLRRA’s jointly 

filed comments. On December 30, 2020, 

David Schanoes submitted two separate 

comments on the NPRM. On December 

21, 2020, Patrick Coyle submitted 

comments. FRA thanks each commenter 

for the time and effort put into the 

comments. 

As most comments FRA received are 

directed at a specific regulatory change 

FRA proposed in the NPRM, FRA 

discusses them in the appropriate 

portions of Section IV (Section-bySection Analysis) of this final rule. 

In this section, FRA discusses only 

comments generally applicable to this 

rulemaking and comments outside the 

scope of the rulemaking. In general, the 

comments expressed support for both of 

FRA’s proposals in the NPRM. Several 

commenters also commended FRA for 

proposing changes to its oversight and 

regulation of PTC technology now that 

it has been fully implemented on all 

main lines currently subject to the 

mandate. 

In its comments, APTA asserts that, as 

a general matter, FRA must justify each 

proposal of its NPRM separately, taking 

issue with FRA’s acknowledgement in 

the executive summary of the NPRM 

that the costs associated with expanding 

the reporting requirement under 

§ 236.1029(h) are outweighed by the 

savings or business benefits incurred by 

FRA’s streamlining of § 236.1021. More 

specifically, APTA states that these 

issues should not be considered 

together, and FRA must justify each 

proposal separately on its own merits. 

FRA agrees that it should 

independently justify each change to its 

PTC regulations, which FRA has done 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40157 

19See also 49 CFR 236.1015(d)(20). 20 75 FR 2598, 2660 (Jan. 15, 2010). 

in Sections III (Summary of the Main 

Provisions in the Final Rule), IV 

(Section-by-Section Analysis), and V 

(Regulatory Impact and Notices) of this 

final rule. Consistent with FRA’s 

approach in the NPRM, this final rule 

identifies and explains the need and 

basis for each change. Intended only as 

an overview, Section I (Executive 

Summary) summarizes the overall 

industry costs, business benefits, 

government savings, and net benefits of 

the final rule. 

In addition, APTA’s comments 

include a general request from the 

commuter rail industry for FRA to 

review its cost-benefit analysis 

associated with the changes to 

§ 236.1029(h) FRA proposed in the 

NPRM. Accordingly, based on 

comments received, FRA thoroughly 

reviewed and updated its estimate of the 

increased burden associated with 

expanding the reporting requirement 

under § 236.1029(h), which FRA 

discusses in Section V (Regulatory 

Impact and Notices). 

Also, FRA received several comments 

that are outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. Specifically, an individual 

commented that all federal agencies 

must step up their activities related to 

cybersecurity, noting that PTC 

technology is one area where FRA must 

proactively address cybersecurity needs. 

That comment acknowledges that a 

comprehensive attempt to addressing 

cybersecurity challenges would require 

a separate rulemaking. Although the 

comment is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking, FRA wants to note that its 

existing regulations establish security 

requirements for PTC systems under 49 

CFR 236.1033, Communications and 

security requirements, including the 

requirement for all wireless 

communications between the office, 

wayside, and onboard components in a 

PTC system to provide cryptographic 

message integrity and authentication.19

In addition, FRA notes that certain 

cybersecurity issues resulting in PTC 

system failures, defective conditions, or 

previously unidentified hazards are 

currently reportable under 49 CFR 

236.1023, Errors and malfunctions, and 

cybersecurity issues resulting in 

initialization failures, cut outs, or 

malfunctions, will be reportable in the 

new Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) 

under 49 CFR 236.1029(h). 

An individual also commented that 

FRA should expand the scope of 49 CFR 

236.1023(b), Errors and malfunctions, to 

include third-party reports of software 

and firmware vulnerabilities. The 

comment rightfully observes that such a 

change is also outside the scope of this 

rulemaking, as the NPRM did not 

propose amending § 236.1023 and, 

therefore, this final rule does not 

address the substance of the comment. 

III. Summary of the Main Provisions in 

the Final Rule 

A. Establishing a New Process for 

Modifying FRA-Certified PTC Systems 

and the Associated PTCSPs 

FRA’s PTC regulations have always 

acknowledged that after 

‘‘implementation of a train control 

system, the subject railroad may have 

legitimate reasons for making changes in 

the system design,’’ among other 

changes, including to a PTC system’s 

functionality.20 Indeed, FRA is aware 

that host railroads will need to deploy 

new PTC software releases, among other 

changes, to ensure their PTC systems are 

performing properly—for example, to 

fix certain bugs or defects or eliminate 

newly discovered hazards. In addition 

to incremental changes to PTC systems 

that are necessary for the continued safe 

and proper functioning of the 

technology, FRA understands that 

several railroads and PTC system 

vendors and suppliers have chosen to 

design and develop their PTC systems to 

perform functions in addition to the 

minimum, performance-based functions 

specified under the statutory mandate 

and FRA’s regulations. 

Currently, however, FRA’s PTC 

regulations prohibit a railroad from 

making certain changes to its FRAapproved PTCSP or FRA-certified PTC 

system unless the railroad files an RFA 

to its PTCSP and obtains approval from 

FRA’s Associate Administrator for 

Railroad Safety. 49 CFR 236.1021. 

Though FRA’s existing regulations 

specify that FRA will, to the extent 

practicable, review and issue a decision 

regarding a host railroad’s initially filed 

PTCSP within 180 days of the date it 

was filed, FRA’s regulations do not 

currently specify an estimated timeline 

for reviewing and approving or denying 

railroads’ subsequent RFAs to their 

PTCSPs. 

Instead of the existing RFA approval 

process involving complex content 

requirements and an indefinite decision 

timeline, this final rule: (1) Requires 

railroads to comply with a streamlined 

RFA process, including providing 

certain documentation, analysis, and 

safety assurances; and (2) establishes a 

45-day deadline for FRA’s review and 

issuance of a decision. The improved 

process will enable the industry to 

implement technological enhancements 

more efficiently, and the clear timeline 

will help ensure a more predictable and 

transparent FRA review process going 

forward. 

In addition, this final rule permits 

host railroads utilizing the same type of 

PTC system to submit joint RFAs to 

their PTCSPs and PTCDPs. Appreciating 

that changes to safety-critical elements, 

including software or system 

architecture, of a certain PTC system 

will likely impact multiple, if not most, 

railroads operating that same type of 

PTC system, FRA’s final rule outlines a 

path for such host railroads to submit 

joint RFAs to their PTCSPs, with 

specific instructions under new 

paragraphs (l) and (m) of § 236.1021. 

FRA recognizes that modifying and 

simplifying the process for host 

railroads to submit RFAs to PTCSPs for 

FRA-certified PTC systems is necessary 

to facilitate required maintenance and 

upgrades to PTC technology and 

encourage railroads to enhance their 

PTC systems to continue to improve rail 

safety. 

B. Expanding the Performance-Related 

Reporting Requirements 

FRA’s regulations currently require a 

railroad to submit an annual report by 

April 16th each year regarding the 

number of PTC system failures, 

‘‘including but not limited to 

locomotive, wayside, communications, 

and back office system failures,’’ that 

occurred during the previous calendar 

year. 49 CFR 236.1029(h). The first 

failure-related annual reports pursuant 

to § 236.1029(h) were due on April 16, 

2019, from the four host railroads whose 

statutory deadline was December 31, 

2018, for the full implementation of a 

PTC system on their required main 

lines. FRA has found that the annual 

reports railroads submitted to date have 

been brief (e.g., as short as half of a 

page) and included minimal 

information, but still technically 

satisfied the existing content 

requirements under § 236.1029(h). 

Because the minimal information 

currently required under § 236.1029(h) 

does not permit FRA to monitor 

adequately the rate at which PTC system 

failures occur, or to evaluate 

improvements over time, FRA is 

revising § 236.1029(h) to enable FRA to 

perform its oversight functions 

effectively. Specifically, FRA is 

increasing the frequency of this 

reporting requirement from annual to 

biannual, which will enable FRA to 

monitor more closely trends in PTC 

system reliability. In addition, to ensure 

the data railroads submit under 

§ 236.1029(h) are uniform, comparable, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40158 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

21 49 U.S.C. 20157(j). 

22Available at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/ 

PTCSystemFailuresFRAForm177/. 

23For additional detail, please see 84 FR 72121 

(Dec. 30, 2019) and 85 FR 15022 (Mar. 16, 2020). 

24See also 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) and (e)(1) 

(authorizing DOT to assess civil penalties for any 

violation of the statutory mandate). 

25See 84 FR 72121, 72125 (Dec. 30, 2019); 85 FR 

15022, 15025–26 (Mar. 16, 2020). 

26FRA did not receive any comments requesting 

a change to its proposed definition of ‘‘initialization 

failure’’ or ‘‘cut out.’’ 

and objective, FRA is revising this 

reporting requirement by specifying the 

exact types of statistics and information 

the reports must include. 

Furthermore, FRA is amending 

§ 236.1029(h) to make it consistent with 

the temporary reporting requirement 

under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), as the 

existing statutory and regulatory 

provisions use different terminology to 

describe PTC-related failures. As 

background, the Positive Train Control 

Enforcement and Implementation Act of 

2015 established a reporting 

requirement that applies only 

temporarily, from October 29, 2015, to 

December 31, 2021.21 On June 5, 2020, 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) approved the Statutory 

Notification of PTC System Failures 

(Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control 

No. 2130–0553),22 which FRA 

developed in 2019, and then revised in 

2020 based on feedback from AAR and 

APTA.23 Host railroads must submit 

that form monthly to comply with 49 

U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) until that temporary 

reporting requirement expires on 

December 31, 2021.24

FRA’s new Biannual Report of PTC 

System Performance (Form FRA F 

6180.152) under revised § 236.1029(h) 

will incorporate both: (1) The minimal 

information currently required under 

§ 236.1029(h); and (2) the corresponding 

types of data railroads must submit until 

December 31, 2021, in their Statutory 

Notifications of PTC System Failures 

(Form FRA F 6180.177). Similarly, this 

final rule revises § 236.1029(h) to utilize 

the failure-related terms under 49 U.S.C. 

20157(j)—initialization failures, cut 

outs, and malfunctions—instead of the 

broad, imprecise term currently used in 

§ 236.1029(h) (‘‘failures’’). 

Furthermore, during meetings FRA 

held before publication of the NPRM, 

railroads observed that, under existing 

§ 236.1029(h), it is unclear whether a 

host railroad, a tenant railroad, or both 

must submit the required reports to 

FRA, as the existing provision uses only 

the word ‘‘railroad.’’ In this final rule, 

FRA resolves this ambiguity by 

specifying that only host railroads must 

directly submit these reports to FRA. In 

addition, new paragraph (4) under 

§ 236.1029(h) requires each applicable 

tenant railroad that operates on a host 

railroad’s PTC-governed main lines to 

submit the necessary information to 

each applicable host railroad on a 

continuous basis, which will enable 

host railroads to submit their Biannual 

Reports of PTC System Performance to 

FRA, on behalf of themselves and their 

tenant railroads. 

FRA considers its changes to 

§ 236.1029(h) necessary to enable FRA 

to monitor the performance and 

reliability of railroads’ PTC systems 

effectively throughout the country. 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Section 236.1003 Definitions 

FRA is adding three definitions to 

paragraph (b) of this section to help 

ensure that FRA and the railroad 

industry consistently interpret the 

failure-related terms under 49 U.S.C. 

20157(j)—initialization failures, cut 

outs, and malfunctions—as FRA is now 

also using these corresponding terms in 

revised § 236.1029(h) and the associated 

Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152). 

Specifically, as proposed in the NPRM, 

FRA’s final rule generally adopts the 

definitions of these three terms that FRA 

currently utilizes in the Statutory 

Notification of PTC System Failures 

(Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control 

No. 2130–0553), which were, in part, 

revised and refined based on industry’s 

feedback during the development of that 

corresponding form and the definitions 

therein.25

In its comments on the NPRM, APTA 

seeks FRA’s confirmation that a specific 

type of failure should be categorized as 

either a cut out or a malfunction (i.e., an 

en route failure), not an initialization 

failure. Specifically, APTA describes the 

following scenario: in a maintenance 

facility, before departing, a crew 

successfully initializes a PTC system on 

both ends of a push-pull train (the 

locomotive and the cab car), and the 

train successfully enters PTC-governed 

territory with the PTC system 

functioning properly. Subsequently, 

when the crew switches to operating the 

cab car (instead of the locomotive or 

vice versa), the PTC system then fails to 

activate properly. 

APTA requests confirmation that FRA 

would not consider this type of failure 

an initialization failure, but instead an 

en route failure, either a cut out or a 

malfunction. FRA concurs with APTA’s 

interpretation. Under these specific 

circumstances, the PTC system was 

successfully initialized on both the 

locomotive and the cab car of the pushpull train, and the subsequent failure 

should be categorized as either a cut out 

or a malfunction, depending on the 

underlying facts, per the definitions 

under § 236.1003(b). 

In addition, APTA requests 

confirmation that if the state of a PTC 

system is either ‘‘disengaged’’ or 

‘‘failed,’’ that state is categorized as a 

malfunction, not as a cut out, under 

FRA’s definitions of those terms. FRA 

concurs with that interpretation. FRA’s 

understanding is that if a PTC system 

conveys it has ‘‘disengaged’’ or ‘‘failed,’’ 

it is likely due to a failure in the 

communications network or elsewhere 

in the system, and it would be 

categorized as a malfunction, not a cut 

out. 

FRA received one comment 

requesting a change to its proposed 

definition of ‘‘malfunction.’’ 26

Regarding FRA’s proposed definition of 

‘‘malfunction,’’ an individual suggested 

that FRA should add the following 

clause to the end of the definition: ‘‘or 

any indication of unauthorized system 

access or other indicators of 

compromise described by system 

suppliers or vendors.’’ FRA’s proposed 

definition of ‘‘malfunction’’ in the 

NPRM was ‘‘any instance when a PTC 

system, subsystem, or component fails 

to perform the functions mandated 

under 49 U.S.C. 20157(i)(5), this 

subpart, or the applicable host railroad’s 

PTCSP.’’ 

FRA declines to add the requested 

clause to the end of the definition of 

‘‘malfunction’’ for two reasons. First, 

host railroads have become accustomed 

to collecting data using the exact 

definition of ‘‘malfunction’’ FRA 

proposed in the NPRM, as FRA 

developed that definition with 

industry’s feedback during its 

establishment of the Statutory 

Notification of PTC System Failures 

(Form FRA F 6180.177). Second, FRA’s 

proposed definition of ‘‘malfunction’’ 

already captures certain instances that 

the commenter describes. For example, 

if a person or entity interferes with a 

PTC system, subsystem, or component 

to the point that the technology fails to 

perform the functions mandated under 

49 U.S.C. 20157(i)(5), FRA’s PTC 

regulations, or the applicable host 

railroad’s PTCSP, that would fall 

squarely within the definition of 

‘‘malfunction.’’ 

This final rule adopts the three 

definitions FRA proposed of ‘‘cut out,’’ 

‘‘initialization failure,’’ and 

‘‘malfunction’’ in the NPRM, with one 

modification. In the clause that refers to 

a person cutting out a PTC system in the 

definition of ‘‘cut out,’’ FRA is adding 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40159 

27That is, proposed modifications to safetycritical elements of PTC systems or proposed 

modifications to a PTC system that affect the safetycritical functionality of any other PTC system with 

which it interoperates. 

28For additional detail and background, please 

see the NPRM and Sections I (Executive Summary) 

and III–A (Establishing a New Process for Modifying 

FRA-certified PTC Systems and the Associated 

PTCSPs) of this final rule. 

29The current set of PTC-mandated host railroads 

have fully implemented five types of PTC systems, 

though FRA acknowledges that, in several cases, 

railroads implemented PTC systems of the same 

type in different manners (e.g., variances in design, 

functionality, and operation). This has required, 

and will continue to require, railroads to conduct 

additional testing and gap analyses to achieve and 

sustain interoperability, including configuration 

management. 

the qualifying phrase ‘‘with 

authorization’’ to the definition in the 

final rule, which will help avoid the 

impression that trains crews may cut 

out a PTC system without first following 

the applicable procedures in the 

governing FRA-approved PTCSP and/or 

the railroad’s own operating rules. Other 

than the addition of those two words for 

clarification, this final rule adopts the 

three definitions FRA proposed in the 

NPRM. 

Section 236.1021 Discontinuances, 

Material Modifications, and 

Amendments 

In general, the purpose of existing 

paragraphs (a) through (d) is to prohibit 

a railroad from making changes, as 

defined by this section, to a PTC system, 

PTC Implementation Plan (PTCIP), 

PTCDP, or PTCSP, unless the railroad 

submits an RFA, with the content 

requirements under existing paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (7), and obtains approval 

from FRA’s Associate Administrator for 

Railroad Safety. 

In its comments, APTA states that 

§ 236.1021 will present an undue 

burden to its members if FRA broadly 

interprets the types of changes (often 

referred to as ‘‘material modifications’’) 

that require a host railroad to file an 

RFA under § 236.1021(h). Consistent 

with FRA’s statements in the NPRM, 

this rule does not revise the types of 

changes that trigger the filing of an RFA 

under existing paragraphs (h)(1) through 

(4) or the exceptions currently set forth 

under § 236.1021(i)–(k). The types of 

changes that relate specifically to this 

final rule because they impact a host 

railroad’s PTCSP and/or the underlying 

FRA-certified PTC system are the 

specific changes identified under 

existing paragraphs (h)(3) and (4)—i.e., 

a proposed modification of a safetycritical element of a PTC system or a 

proposed modification of a PTC system 

that affects the safety-critical 

functionality of any other PTC system 

with which it interoperates. 

FRA previously advised railroads 

about the scope of these terms, 

including common examples, during 

FRA’s PTC Collaboration Sessions and 

in FRA’s individual letters to railroads 

approving their PTCSPs and certifying 

their PTC systems. FRA remains 

available to answer questions about 

whether a specific type of change might 

trigger the requirement to file an RFA 

under existing § 236.1021(h). However, 

as this final rule does not revise the list 

of qualifying changes under existing 

§ 236.1021(h)(1)–(4) or the exceptions 

currently set forth under § 236.1021(i)– 

(k), FRA will handle such inquiries on 

a case-by-case basis and not in this rule. 

In addition, an individual commented 

that FRA should add a fifth type of 

change to existing paragraph (h), which 

FRA is not revising in this rulemaking. 

Specifically, the individual comments 

that FRA should add the following 

provision to the list of changes that 

trigger the filing of an RFA: ‘‘(5) Any 

change in PTC component software or 

firmware.’’ Even if FRA were amending 

the list under § 236.1021(h)(1)–(4), such 

an addition would be unnecessary as 

relevant changes to software or firmware 

are already covered within existing 

paragraphs (h)(3) and (4).27 For 

example, this final rule recognizes that 

certain software changes trigger the 

requirement to file an RFA under 

§ 236.1021, and FRA refers to relevant 

software changes in Sections II 

(Background and Public Participation), 

III (Summary of the Main Provisions in 

the Final Rule), and IV (Section-bySection Analysis), as well as new 

paragraph (m)(2)(ii) under § 236.1021, 

which requires an RFA to include any 

associated software release notes. 

In general, FRA’s revisions to 

§ 236.1021 in this final rule are intended 

primarily to streamline the process by 

which host railroads must submit RFAs 

to their FRA-approved PTCSPs and 

FRA-certified systems, based on FRA’s 

recognition that the railroad industry 

intends to update and enhance FRAcertified PTC systems to advance rail 

safety.28 Accordingly, FRA’s revisions 

to the process under existing paragraphs 

(a), (c), and (d) are limited to removing 

any references to PTCSPs or PTC 

systems from those paragraphs, as this 

final rule establishes a new, streamlined 

process for RFAs associated with FRAapproved PTCSPs and FRA-certified 

PTC systems under new paragraphs (l) 

and (m). In addition to removing 

references to PTCSPs from existing 

paragraphs (a), (c), and (d), this final 

rule removes paragraph (d)(7) in its 

entirety, and incorporates the general 

principle of paragraph (d)(7) into a new 

proposed paragraph, (m)(2)(i), as 

discussed below. 

In this final rule, under new 

paragraph (l), FRA permits host 

railroads utilizing the same type of PTC 

system to submit joint RFAs to their 

PTCSPs and PTCDPs, as those are 

system-based documents, albeit with 

some railroad-specific variances. FRA 

expects that host railroads will utilize 

this joint RFA option to the extent 

practicable, and it will efficiently 

leverage the industry’s resources, help 

ensure coordination among railroads 

operating the same types of PTC 

systems, and reduce the number of 

similar or identical RFA filings host 

railroads submit to FRA for review and 

approval.29 Because changes to safetycritical elements, including software or 

system architecture, of a certain PTC 

system will likely impact multiple, if 

not most, railroads implementing that 

same type of PTC system, this final rule 

outlines a path for such host railroads 

to submit joint RFAs to their PTCSPs, 

with specific instructions under new 

paragraphs (l) and (m). FRA recognizes 

that many host railroads participate in 

system-specific committees or working 

groups to ensure they maintain PTC 

system interoperability, among other 

objectives. FRA considers it acceptable 

for an association, committee, or 

working group to submit a joint RFA 

under paragraph (l), but such a joint 

RFA must be explicitly on behalf of two 

or more host railroads, and each host 

railroad must sign the filing. 

New paragraph (l) also specifies that 

only host railroads with the same PTC 

System Certification classification under 

49 CFR 236.1015(e) may file a joint RFA 

to their PTCSPs. In its comments, APTA 

expresses general support for this 

provision, noting that many APTA 

members will benefit from this 

flexibility, especially railroads whose I– 

ETMS systems FRA has certified as 

mixed PTC systems. APTA further 

explains both that its members are 

‘‘small organizations with limited staff, 

funding, and resources,’’ and that 

railroads operating ACSES II/ASES II, 

E–ATC, or non-vital, overlay I–ETMS 

systems may not benefit from this 

provision to the same extent. 

In the NPRM, FRA acknowledged that 

while new paragraph (l) provides the 

same flexibility for all host railroads 

operating all types of PTC systems, 

some groups of railroads might be better 

positioned to begin filing joint RFAs 

immediately. Though this final rule 

generally authorizes host railroads, 

utilizing the same type of PTC system, 

to file RFAs to their PTCSPs jointly, 

FRA expects this aspect of the final rule, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40160 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

30Also, with respect to I–ETMS and similar 

systems, FRA acknowledges that in January 2021, 

FRA’s Railroad Safety Board approved AAR and 

ASLRRA’s joint petition, dated August 14, 2020, for 

a temporary waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 

236.1021. Specifically, FRA’s approval of the 

waiver petition authorizes certain railroads to 

comply with an alternative RFA process, including 

the filing of joint RFAs, for PTCSP purposes. 

However, as requested, the waiver applies only to 

host railroads that operate an Interoperable Train 

Control PTC system that FRA has certified, or 

certifies, as a mixed PTC system under 49 CFR 

236.1015(e)(4). FRA’s approval letter states the 

waiver is in effect for five years or until FRA issues 

this final rule, whichever occurs first. For a copy 

of the waiver petition, or FRA’s approval letter, 

please see public Docket No. FRA–2020–0068. 

31Railroads’ applicable PTC docket numbers are 

available on FRA’s website at https://

railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-andquarterly-reports. 

in the short term, primarily to impact 

host railroads implementing I–ETMS 

and E–ATC because each respective I– 

ETMS and E–ATC system is similar to 

others of the same type, with a baseline 

functionality.30 Conversely, there is not 

a uniform standard or specification 

currently underlying the ACSES II or 

ASES II PTC systems that host railroads 

have implemented on the NEC. In 

addition, there is an array of ACSES II 

suppliers, including for the onboard, 

wayside, and communications 

subsystems. In the future, however, as 

the ACSES II railroads finish 

establishing the Interoperable Change 

Management Plan they are currently 

developing and finalizing, it is possible 

that at least some of the host railroads 

utilizing ACSES II or ASES II will elect 

to submit joint RFAs to their respective 

PTCSPs for certain system-wide 

changes, consistent with the option 

under new paragraphs (l) and (m) of 

§ 236.1021. 

In short, FRA welcomes joint RFAs 

from any group of host railroads 

utilizing the same type of PTC system 

with the same certification 

classification, as new paragraph (l) 

states. FRA remains available to provide 

technical assistance to any railroads that 

have questions about this provision and 

how to utilize the flexibility therein. 

Here is an example to help explain 

the practical effect of new paragraph (l). 

When an RFA is necessary under 

§ 236.1021 to account for certain 

proposed changes to railroads’ I–ETMS 

PTCSPs, or I–ETMS itself, FRA expects 

a joint RFA from the set of host railroads 

whose I–ETMS is certified as a nonvital, overlay PTC system under 

§ 236.1015(e)(1), and a joint RFA from 

the set of host railroads whose I–ETMS 

is certified as a mixed PTC system 

under § 236.1015(e)(4). Two distinct 

RFAs are necessary under these 

circumstances, as the impact of the 

proposed change(s) must be analyzed in 

the context of the underlying safety 

analysis in the FRA-approved PTCSPs— 

a safety analysis that is structured 

differently based on whether FRA has 

certified the PTC system as a non-vital, 

overlay system; a vital, overlay system; 

a standalone system; or a mixed system. 

Furthermore, with respect to joint 

RFAs, new paragraph (l) specifies that, 

though most types of information 

required under new paragraph (m)(2) 

may be submitted jointly in the RFA, a 

joint RFA must include the written 

confirmation and statement specified 

under new paragraphs (m)(2)(iii) and 

(iv), as described below, from each host 

railroad that is a signatory to the joint 

RFA. 

In this final rule, FRA outlines, in 

new paragraph (m), the mandatory, 

three-step process a host railroad must 

follow to make changes to its FRAcertified PTC system and the associated 

FRA-approved PTCSP. FRA intends the 

process under paragraph (m) to apply to 

all changes necessitating an RFA under 

existing paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) of this 

section—i.e., proposed changes to 

safety-critical elements of PTC systems 

and proposed changes to a PTC system 

that affect the safety-critical 

functionality of any other PTC system 

with which it interoperates. For brevity, 

FRA will refer to these changes as 

changes to safety-critical elements of 

PTC systems, as that is sufficiently 

broad for purposes of paragraph (m). 

New paragraph (m)(1) requires a host 

railroad to revise its PTCSP to account 

for each proposed change to its PTC 

system, and summarize such changes in 

a chronological table of revisions at the 

beginning of its PTCSP. FRA retains its 

authority to request a copy of a host 

railroad’s governing PTCSP in 

accordance with 49 CFR 236.1009(h), 

FRA access, and 49 CFR 236.1037, 

Records retention. FRA did not receive 

any comments on new paragraph (m)(1), 

as proposed, and thus, FRA is adopting 

that paragraph without change. 

The introductory text in new 

paragraph (m)(2) specifically requires a 

host railroad to file an RFA pursuant to 

paragraph (m) electronically, which 

could include electronic filing on FRA’s 

Secure Information Repository (https:// 

sir.fra.dot.gov), where railroads 

currently file other PTC-related 

documents, or any other location FRA 

designates. If a host railroad wishes to 

seek confidential treatment of any part 

of its RFA, the railroad must comply 

with the existing process and 

requirements under 49 CFR 209.11, 

Request for confidential treatment. That 

process includes marking the document 

properly with the necessary labels and 

redactions, and providing a statement 

justifying nondisclosure and referring to 

the specific legal authority claimed. 

FRA will post a host railroad’s RFA (the 

public, redacted version, if applicable) 

and FRA’s final decision letter in the 

respective railroad’s PTC docket on 

http://www.regulations.gov.31 FRA did 

not receive any comments on the 

introductory text in new paragraph 

(m)(2), as proposed, and thus, FRA is 

adopting that introductory text without 

change. 

In new paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through 

(v), FRA outlines the specific content 

requirements for an RFA to an FRAcertified PTC system and the associated 

PTCSP. The requirements focus on the 

core information and analysis FRA 

needs to review to ensure the PTC 

system, including any proposed 

changes, will provide an equivalent or 

greater level of safety than the existing 

PTC system. Importantly, new 

paragraph (m)(2)(i) requires the RFA to 

include a summary of the proposed 

changes to any safety-critical elements 

of a PTC system, including: (1) A 

summary of how the changes to the PTC 

system would affect its safety-critical 

functionality; (2) how any new hazards 

have been addressed and mitigated; (3) 

whether each change is a planned 

change that was previously included in 

all required analysis under § 236.1015, 

or an unplanned change; and (4) the 

reason for the proposed changes, 

including whether the changes are 

necessary to address or resolve an 

emergency or urgent issue. 

Regarding paragraph (m)(2)(i), APTA 

recommends that FRA remove the last 

part of the summary section of the 

RFA—i.e., ‘‘including whether the 

changes are necessary to address or 

resolve an emergency or urgent issue.’’ 

FRA does not agree that this clause 

should be removed, as that type of 

statement will provide valuable 

information to FRA. For example, such 

information will help FRA understand 

why a specific RFA should be 

prioritized and expedited under the 

circumstances. 

Furthermore, for context, FRA’s 

existing paragraphs (d)(7)(i) through (v) 

of § 236.1021 explain the distinction 

between an unplanned change and a 

planned change and impose certain 

additional requirements, including 

conducting suitable regression testing to 

FRA’s satisfaction and filing a new 

PTCDP and PTCSP, under certain 

circumstances. As noted above, this 

final rule removes paragraph (d)(7) in its 

entirety and instead requires a host 

railroad to identify in its RFA under 

paragraph (m)(2)(i) only whether the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40161 

32See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1001(a), 236.1015(d)(11), 

236.1015(e)(1)(iii), and 236.1015(g). 

33AAR and ASLRRA’s comments also assert that 

this type of catch-all provision renders FRA’s 

burden estimates speculative. However, FRA’s 

burden estimates are based on the full set of 

information that paragraph (m) requires RFAs to 

PTCSPs to contain, including any responses to 

FRA’s possible requests for additional information 

on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate or necessary. 

As AAR and ASLRRA’s comments acknowledge, 

this type of provision exists in current 49 CFR 

236.1021(d), as well as other provisions not 

referenced, including 236.1015(f). FRA’s requests 

for additional information in those contexts have 

been infrequent. 

change is a planned change or an 

unplanned change. That basic 

information will be valuable to include 

in the abbreviated RFA under paragraph 

(m) because several railroads have 

already accounted for long-term, 

planned changes to their PTC systems 

and proactively integrated those 

assumptions into the corresponding 

analyses in their PTCSPs. 

As FRA noted in the NPRM, planned 

changes ‘‘are those that the system 

developer and the railroad have 

included in the safety analysis 

associated with the PTC system, but 

have not yet implemented.’’ In its 

comments, APTA asks FRA to confirm 

that unplanned changes are, therefore, 

any changes not already documented in 

a railroad’s PTCSP. FRA confirms that 

APTA’s interpretation is correct. As 

FRA received only the two above 

comments on new paragraph (m)(2)(i), 

this final rule adopts that paragraph as 

proposed. 

New paragraph (m)(2)(ii) requires the 

RFA to include a copy of any associated 

software release notes, which is critical 

for FRA to review and evaluate before 

one or more railroads deploy the 

upgraded software. A copy of the release 

notes is integral in conveying the actual 

changes to the PTC system, including 

any corrections, enhancements, or new 

features or functionality. FRA did not 

receive any comments on new 

paragraph (m)(2)(ii), as proposed, and 

thus, FRA is adopting that paragraph 

without change. 

New paragraph (m)(2)(iii) requires the 

RFA to contain a confirmation that the 

host railroad has notified any applicable 

tenant railroads of the proposed 

changes, any associated effect on the 

tenant railroads’ operations, and any 

actions the tenant railroads must take in 

accordance with the configuration 

control measures set forth in the host 

railroad’s PTCSP. FRA did not receive 

any comments on new paragraph 

(m)(2)(iii), as proposed, and thus, FRA 

is adopting that paragraph without 

change. 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed that 

paragraph (m)(2)(iv) would require the 

RFA to include a statement from the 

host railroad’s Chief Engineer and Chief 

Operating Officer (COO), or executive 

officers of similar qualifications, 

verifying that the PTC system, once 

modified, would meet all technical 

requirements under 49 CFR part 236, 

subpart I, provide an equivalent or 

greater level of safety than the existing 

PTC system, and not adversely impact 

interoperability with any tenant 

railroads. 

In their joint comments regarding 

proposed paragraph (m)(2)(iv), AAR and 

ASLRRA recommend the following: 

‘‘Instead of requiring hollow paperwork, 

the railroads instead propose that RFA 

submissions identify a designated and 

knowledgeable railroad contact who 

will be responsible for responding to 

FRA questions or requests for additional 

information, if any, and who will be 

able to do so quickly, completely, and 

authoritatively.’’ AAR and ASLRRA’s 

recommendation is based on several 

assertions, including that a verification 

statement from a railroad’s Chief 

Engineer and COO was not required for 

railroad’s initial PTCIP, PTCDP, or 

PTCSP, and it is unnecessary for RFAs, 

which are relatively less complex. In 

addition, AAR and ASLRRA assert that 

a railroad’s Chief Engineer and COO are 

likely not PTC subject matter experts, 

and the highly technical changes 

described in an RFA would not be 

within their purview. Accordingly, a 

Chief Engineer and COO would be 

relying on the representations of their 

staff about the safety impact of the 

amendments proposed in the RFA, so 

the proposed statement would not serve 

a useful purpose. 

In response to AAR and ASLRRA’s 

recommendation, FRA is modifying new 

paragraph (m)(2)(iv) in the final rule. As 

FRA proposed in the NPRM, this final 

rule will still require an RFA to include 

a statement from the respective host 

railroad that the modified PTC system 

(if the proposed changes were 

implemented) would meet all technical 

requirements under 49 CFR part 236, 

subpart I, provide an equivalent or 

greater level of safety than the existing 

PTC system, and not adversely impact 

interoperability with any tenant 

railroads. This is consistent with 

existing regulatory provisions that 

require PTC systems to achieve and 

maintain a level of safety, for each 

system modification, that is equal to or 

greater than the level of safety provided 

by the previous PTC system.32 However, 

based on comments received, FRA is 

eliminating all references to a host 

railroad’s Chief Engineer and COO (or 

executive officers of similar 

qualifications) and instead specifying 

that this statement must be from a 

qualified representative of the host 

railroad. FRA expects this 

representative to be a management-level 

person with technical oversight of the 

railroad’s PTC division. To AAR and 

ASLRRA’s point, that representative 

will be the first person whom FRA 

contacts with any questions. Also, to be 

clear, the host railroad’s representative 

must be an employee of the railroad, not 

a contractor. 

New paragraph (m)(2)(v) requires a 

host railroad to submit any other 

information that FRA requests on a caseby-case basis, during FRA’s review of 

the RFA. This approach is generally 

consistent with the existing provision 

under 49 CFR 236.1015(f), which 

provides that in any case where a 

PTCSP, or an RFA in this scenario, 

‘‘lacks adequate data regarding [the] 

safety impacts of the proposed changes, 

the Associate Administrator may 

request the necessary data from the 

applicant.’’ 

AAR and ASLRRA comment that this 

provision is unnecessary because 

existing § 236.1021(d) already specifies 

that FRA can request information 

necessary to evaluate an RFA in 

appropriate circumstances. However, 

AAR and ASLRRA’s comment fails to 

recognize that going forward, under this 

final rule, existing § 236.1021(d) will 

apply only to RFAs to PTCIPs and 

PTCDPs, not RFAs to PTCSPs or PTC 

systems. FRA explains above that this 

final rule removes any references to 

RFAs to PTCSPs or PTC systems from 

existing paragraph (d), so existing 

paragraph (d) is no longer applicable to 

a host railroad’s RFA to its PTCSP.33

Under this final rule, new paragraphs (l) 

and (m) will govern in this context, as 

they establish the process, including 

content requirements, for RFAs 

associated with FRA-approved PTCSPs 

and FRA-certified PTC systems. 

Also, AAR and ASLRRA comment 

that this provision (paragraph (m)(2)(v)) 

is overbroad and creates the possibility 

of an open-ended process unlikely to be 

completed within FRA’s 45-day 

decision timeline. As FRA noted in the 

NPRM, if FRA were to require a host 

railroad, or a set of host railroads, to 

provide additional information in 

support of the RFA, FRA’s request will 

identify a deadline by which to submit 

the information, and FRA intends to 

send any such request via email to 

ensure an efficient process. If the reason 

for FRA’s request is to have additional 

documentation on file for future 

reference, but that documentation will 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40162 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

34That is, proposed changes to safety-critical 

elements of PTC systems or proposed changes to a 

PTC system that affect the safety-critical 

functionality of any other PTC system with which 

it interoperates. 

not be essential to FRA’s decision 

regarding the pending RFA, the 

deadline FRA specifies might be after 

the 45-day decision timeline. In this 

case, the applicable host railroads will 

receive FRA’s decision (by the 45th day) 

and submit the additional information 

FRA requested by a specific deadline 

thereafter. 

Alternatively, if under the 

circumstances, FRA expects the 

additional information it requests will 

be integral to FRA’s decision regarding 

the pending RFA, FRA will specify that 

the additional information must be 

submitted by, for example, the 20th day 

after the initial RFA filing. In this case, 

FRA will be required nonetheless to 

issue its decision within 45 days of the 

initial RFA filing, consistent with new 

paragraph (m)(3) below. FRA has 

considered AAR and ASLRRA’s 

concerns about new paragraph (m)(2)(v), 

and FRA wants to clarify that this 

provision will not affect the 45-day 

deadline by which FRA must issue its 

decision, as new paragraph (m)(3) 

provides. 

The clock begins when a host 

railroad, or a group of host railroads, 

properly files an RFA with all required 

information pursuant to new paragraphs 

(m)(2)(i) through (iv) (i.e., all content 

requirements for an RFA, expect 

(m)(2)(v) which refers to any case-bycase requests for additional 

information). To be clear, if an RFA fails 

to include any of the contents explicitly 

required for all RFAs to PTCSPs under 

new paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through (iv), 

the 45-day clock will not begin on that 

initial filing date. Instead, the 45-day 

clock will begin on the date the railroad 

or railroads properly submit any 

remaining information required under 

new paragraphs (m)(2)(i) through (iv). 

FRA expects this will incentivize a 

railroad to submit a complete RFA, with 

all contents required under paragraphs 

(m)(2)(i) through (iv), in its initial filing. 

New paragraph (m)(3) outlines a 

definite, predictable timeline associated 

with FRA’s review of an RFA to a host 

railroad’s PTCSP or FRA-certified PTC 

system under paragraph (m). 

Specifically, paragraph (m)(3) prohibits 

a host railroad from making any 

changes, as defined under 49 CFR 

236.1021(h)(3) or (4),34 to its PTC 

system until the Director of FRA’s Office 

of Railroad Systems and Technology 

approves the RFA. In this final rule, 

new paragraph (m)(3)(i) specifies that 

FRA will review an RFA and issue a 

decision—i.e., an approval, conditional 

approval, or denial of the RFA—within 

45 days of the date on which the 

complete RFA was filed under 

paragraph (m)(2). FRA’s decision will be 

in the form of a letter from the Director 

of FRA’s Office of Railroad Systems and 

Technology. As noted above, FRA will 

post each final decision letter in the 

respective railroad’s PTC docket on 

http://www.regulations.gov. FRA, 

however, may send interim 

correspondence—including any notices 

requiring a railroad to provide 

additional information under new 

paragraph (m)(2)(v)—via email, which 

will help ensure that process is efficient. 

FRA received multiple comments on 

new paragraph (m)(3)(i). In its 

comments, APTA recommends that FRA 

reduce the review-and-decision timeline 

from the proposed 45 days to, at most, 

14 days. APTA’s recommendation is 

based on its assertion that the industry 

has implemented at least four to five 

PTC onboard software releases, for I– 

ETMS alone, over the last two years, 

and a 45-day review-and-decision 

period will constrain the industry’s 

ability to continue at its current pace. 

AAR and ASLRRA’s comments express 

concern that FRA may not be able to 

issue a decision within 45 days, and 

they recommend adding a provision 

wherein FRA may issue a summary 

approval of an RFA, with a more 

detailed rationale in a subsequent 

written decision. Like APTA’s 

comments, AAR and ASLRRA’s 

comments underscore the importance of 

host railroads receiving a timely 

decision so that safety improvements 

are not unnecessarily delayed. 

FRA appreciates these comments, but 

FRA declines to incorporate these 

specific recommendations into the final 

rule for the following reasons. Regarding 

AAR and ASLRRA’s proposal, FRA 

expects that a provision allowing the 

agency to issue multiple decision 

letters, a brief decision letter and a 

complete decision letter (typically only 

two pages), could complicate the 

process and make it less efficient. 

As the industry is aware, FRA’s 

regulations do not currently specify a 

timeline for FRA to review and approve 

or deny railroads’ RFAs to their PTCSPs. 

In practice, as of May 2021, it has taken 

FRA 178 days, on average, to review and 

approve recent RFAs to PTCSPs for 

FRA-certified PTC systems. One of 

FRA’s main objectives in modifying 

§ 236.1021 in this final rule is to 

establish a streamlined RFA process 

with a finite decision timeline to enable 

railroads to plan and schedule any 

material modifications, including 

upgrades, to their PTC systems. An FRA 

review-and-decision period of 45 days is 

significantly faster than FRA’s current 

process, and this expedited timeline is 

based on FRA’s interest in facilitating 

the industry’s continual improvements 

to the reliability and operability of PTC 

technology. A period of 14 days, as 

APTA suggests, would not provide 

sufficient time for FRA to review and 

evaluate an RFA (including a joint RFA 

impacting several railroads) and issue a 

decision letter. Accordingly, FRA’s final 

rule adopts new paragraph (m)(3)(i), as 

proposed in the NPRM, without change. 

New paragraph (m)(3)(ii) explicitly 

acknowledges that FRA reserves the 

right to notify a railroad that it may 

proceed with making its proposed 

changes prior to the 45-day mark, 

including in an emergency or under any 

other circumstances necessitating a 

railroad’s immediate implementation of 

the proposed changes to its PTC system. 

FRA did not receive any comments on 

new paragraph (m)(3)(ii), as proposed, 

and thus, FRA is adopting that 

paragraph without change. 

New paragraph (m)(3)(iii) specifies 

that FRA may require a railroad to 

modify its RFA and/or its PTC system, 

but only to the extent necessary to 

ensure safety or compliance with the 

requirements under FRA’s PTC 

regulations. FRA did not receive any 

comments on new paragraph (m)(3)(iii), 

as proposed, and thus, FRA is adopting 

that paragraph without change. 

If FRA denies an RFA under 

paragraph (m), new paragraph (m)(3)(iv) 

specifies that each applicable railroad 

will be prohibited from making the 

proposed changes to its PTC system 

until the railroad both sufficiently 

addresses FRA’s questions, comments, 

and concerns and obtains FRA’s 

approval. Consistent with new 

paragraph (l) of this section, any host 

railroads utilizing the same type of PTC 

system, including the same certification 

classification under paragraph (e) of 

§ 236.1015, may submit information 

jointly to address FRA’s questions, 

comments, and concerns following any 

denial of an RFA under this section. 

FRA did not receive any comments on 

new paragraph (m)(3)(iv), as proposed, 

and thus, FRA is adopting that 

paragraph without change. 

FRA expects the improved process 

established in new § 236.1021(l) and (m) 

of this final rule will ensure FRA’s 

review and decision timeline, regarding 

railroads’ proposed changes to their 

FRA-approved PTCSPs and FRAcertified PTC systems, is predictable 

and consistent. FRA’s improved process 

will also enable the industry to deploy 

upgrades and make technological 

advancements more efficiently. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40163 

35Excel is a registered trademark of Microsoft 

Corporation. All third-party trademarks belong to 

their respective owners. 

36See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1011(d) (stating that a 

‘‘railroad that elects to install a PTC system when 

not required to do so may elect to proceed under 

this subpart [subpart I] or under subpart H of this 

part,’’ including the associated filing and reporting 

requirements). 37Quoting existing 49 CFR 236.1029(h). 

Section 236.1029 PTC System Use and 

Failures 

Currently, paragraph (h) of this 

section requires railroads to report 

annually to FRA the number of PTC 

system failures that occurred during the 

previous calendar year. This final rule 

revises this existing paragraph to clarify 

and expand the reporting requirement 

and require host railroads to submit the 

information in a Biannual Report of PTC 

System Performance (Form FRA F 

6180.152). FRA’s Excel-based 35 Form 

FRA F 6180.152 was placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. 

FRA–2019–0075) for reference and 

review on December 18, 2020, when 

FRA published the NPRM. 

FRA received two comments on 

FRA’s proposal to increase the 

frequency of this reporting requirement 

from annual to biannual. First, an 

individual commented that FRA should 

increase the frequency of this important 

reporting requirement to quarterly, as 

that frequency will help FRA more 

effectively determine if the reliability of 

PTC systems is trending upward or 

downward. Second, in its comments, 

APTA recommends keeping 

§ 236.1029(h) as an annual reporting 

requirement, noting that increasing the 

frequency to biannual may require each 

railroad to use additional resources to 

review and compile data on a more 

regular basis. 

FRA is adopting the biannual 

reporting frequency it proposed in the 

NPRM because that frequency balances 

FRA’s need to oversee the reliability and 

performance of PTC systems actively 

throughout the year, with commuter 

railroads’ stated preference for less 

frequent reporting. With respect to 

APTA’s comment that increasing the 

reporting frequency from annual to 

biannual will require railroads to 

compile performance-related data more 

regularly, FRA accounts for that burden 

in its economic analysis in Section V 

(Regulatory Impact and Notices) of this 

final rule. However, FRA also 

understands that even under existing 

paragraph (h) (with an annual reporting 

deadline), host railroads regularly 

compile this data, not simply before the 

annual deadline, to evaluate their PTC 

systems’ failure rates throughout the 

year. 

New paragraph (h)(1) specifies this 

reporting requirement applies to each 

host railroad subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157 

or 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, which 

also includes any new host railroads 

that become subject to the statutory 

mandate in the future and any host 

railroads that voluntarily implement a 

PTC system under subpart I.36 For 

clarification and simplicity, FRA is 

removing the phrase ‘‘following the date 

of required PTC system implementation 

established by section 20157 of title 49 

of the United States Code’’ from existing 

paragraph (h) because that phrase is 

unnecessary now that the final statutory 

deadline of December 31, 2020, has 

passed. 

In addition, new paragraph (h)(1) 

requires a host railroad to file its 

Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) 

electronically, which includes 

electronic filing on FRA’s Secure 

Information Repository (https://

sir.fra.dot.gov), where railroads file 

other PTC-related documents, or 

another designated location. To the 

extent a railroad seeks confidential 

treatment of any part of its Biannual 

Report of PTC System Performance 

(Form FRA F 6180.152), the railroad 

must comply with the existing process 

and requirements under 49 CFR 209.11, 

including proper labeling and redacting 

and providing a statement justifying 

nondisclosure and referring to the 

specific legal authority claimed. FRA’s 

new Form FRA F 6180.152 contains 

fields for a host railroad to identify its 

request for partial or full confidentiality 

and provide the required statement 

under § 209.11(c), if applicable. 

Also, under this final rule, paragraph 

(h)(1) requires a host railroad to include 

in its Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) the 

metrics itemized under paragraphs 

(h)(1)(i) through (vii) for the host 

railroad, each of its applicable tenant 

railroads (as explained in new 

paragraph (h)(4)), and each of its PTCgoverned track segments. In this 

paragraph, FRA acknowledges that a 

host railroad’s PTCIP may identify or 

designate its specific track segments as 

territories, subdivisions, districts, main 

lines, branches, or corridors, based on a 

railroad’s own naming conventions. 

FRA expects that requiring this 

relatively high-level geographical 

information (i.e., by track segment, not 

by milepost location) will still enable 

FRA to monitor trends in PTC system 

reliability throughout the country and 

focus its resources, for example, on any 

areas where PTC system failures are 

occurring at a high rate. 

Relatedly, FRA received one comment 

from an individual inquiring what FRA 

plans to do with the information 

railroads submit in their new biannual 

reports. The commenter states that, from 

his perspective, there is very little point 

in requiring railroads to submit such 

reports without FRA making a 

coincident commitment to producing 

high-level summaries of the reports, 

analyses of trends, and 

recommendations based on that 

analysis. He further notes that 

compelling those interested in these 

reports to seek information through 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

petitions defeats the entire purpose of a 

public agency requiring such reporting, 

in his view. 

In response to the general inquiry in 

this individual’s comment, FRA intends 

to use host railroads’ Biannual Reports 

of PTC System Performance to evaluate, 

for example, the rate at which PTC 

systems are experiencing failures, 

including initialization failures, cut 

outs, and malfunctions, and trends in 

system reliability over time. In addition, 

these reports will help FRA prioritize its 

resources, including helping inform 

decisions about which railroads may 

benefit from additional technical 

assistance from FRA’s PTC specialists. 

As a part of FRA’s ongoing PTC 

oversight, the agency will evaluate the 

best way to continue its transparent 

reporting on PTC progress and 

challenges. 

Consistent with existing paragraph 

(h), new paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through 

(iii) require a host railroad’s biannual 

report to include the number of PTCrelated failures that occurred during the 

applicable reporting period, in addition 

to a numerical breakdown of the 

‘‘failures by category, including but not 

limited to locomotive, wayside, 

communications, and back office system 

failures.’’ 37 In new paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 

through (iii), however, FRA 

acknowledges that the source or cause 

of a PTC system failure might not 

necessarily involve, in every instance, 

the PTC system itself, so this final rule 

includes an additional category for 

railroads to select in the applicable 

drop-down menu in Form FRA F 

6180.152—i.e., ‘‘a non-PTC 

component.’’ 

Another difference between the 

existing paragraph (h) and FRA’s new 

paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) is that 

the final rule utilizes the statutory 

terminology under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) 

as referenced above—initialization 

failures, cut outs, and malfunctions— 

which are now defined under paragraph 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40164 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

38 In the preceding paragraphs, FRA explains why 

this final rule eliminates the word ‘‘intended’’ from 

new paragraph (h)(1)(iv), based on AAR and 

ASLRRA’s joint comments and APTA’s comments. 

(b) of § 236.1003. FRA is aware that 

railroads track their PTC system failures 

in this manner (by type of failure), given 

the existing temporary reporting 

requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) 

and FRA’s associated mandatory form, 

the Statutory Notification of PTC 

System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, 

OMB Control No. 2130–0553). FRA did 

not receive any comments on new 

paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii), as 

proposed, and this final rule adopts 

these proposed paragraphs from the 

NPRM, without change. 

In the NPRM, FRA also proposed to 

expand the existing reporting 

requirement under paragraph (h) to 

encompass certain positive, 

performance-related information, as 

otherwise the information FRA receives 

would be about PTC system failures 

only. Specifically, FRA proposed that 

new paragraph (h)(1)(iv) would require 

a host railroad to identify the number of 

intended enforcements by the PTC 

system and any other instances in 

which the PTC system prevented an 

accident or incident on the host 

railroad’s PTC-governed main lines, 

during the applicable reporting period. 

FRA received extensive comments on 

this proposal, including from AAR, 

ASLRRA, APTA, Amtrak, and NJT. FRA 

addresses the general comments about 

paragraph (h)(1)(iv) immediately below. 

FRA responds to the related ACSES IIspecific comments later in this section 

when discussing new paragraph (h)(5). 

AAR, ASLRRA, and APTA each 

comment that the proposed metric, 

‘‘intended enforcements,’’ is a subjective 

and unreliable data point. They note 

that enforcements by a PTC system, 

whether intended or not, indicate the 

system is working. Both APTA and 

Amtrak recommend removing this 

metric from the final rule in its entirety. 

FRA declines APTA’s and Amtrak’s 

recommendation to eliminate this 

metric because if FRA were to do so, 

host railroads’ Biannual Reports of PTC 

System Performance (Form FRA F 

6180.152) would not include any 

positive data about their PTC systems’ 

performance. 

AAR and ASLRRA, on the other hand, 

recommend that FRA refine the metric 

to be more objective by removing the 

adjective ‘‘intended’’ and retaining the 

term ‘‘enforcements.’’ AAR and 

ASLRRA explain that this metric is far 

less subjective and will result in a more 

easily normalized metric to compare to 

railroads’ other data. They further 

observe that this metric—i.e., 

enforcements in general—would avoid 

cost and resource burdens, which 

railroads would bear if they needed to 

analyze individual enforcements to 

determine whether to classify them as 

intended. FRA concurs with AAR and 

ASLRRA’s analysis and, in this final 

rule, under new paragraph (h)(1)(iv), 

FRA adopts AAR and ASLRRA’s joint 

recommendation to require host 

railroads to identify the total number of 

all enforcements by the PTC system 

during the applicable reporting period, 

whether the enforcements were 

intended or not. 

FRA interprets the term 

‘‘enforcement’’ in new paragraph 

(h)(1)(iv) consistently with how the term 

‘‘enforce’’ is applied in FRA’s existing 

PTC regulations, which include 

references to, among other things, how 

a PTC system shall enforce speeds, 

movement authorities, and signal 

indications. See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1005, 

236.1013, 236.1015, and 236.1047(a)(3). 

FRA expects that new paragraph 

(h)(1)(iv)—focusing on enforcements by 

a PTC system in general—will provide 

valuable performance-related data, 

while avoiding the issues APTA, AAR, 

and ASLRRA raise regarding the 

NPRM’s more subjective, resourceintensive proposal to report only 

intended enforcements. 

Furthermore, based on comments 

from AAR, ASLRRA, and APTA, FRA 

recognizes that its initial proposal for 

paragraph (h)(1)(iv) also created 

confusion. In the NPRM, FRA proposed 

that paragraph (h)(1)(iv) would require a 

host railroad to identify the number of 

intended enforcements by the PTC 

system and any other instances in 

which the PTC system prevented an 

accident or incident on the host 

railroad’s PTC-governed main lines, 

during the applicable reporting period. 

Several comments demonstrate that 

some people interpreted that proposed 

content requirement as referring to one 

connected data point, but it was 

proposing two separate data points, 

distinguished by the word ‘‘and.’’ 

Specifically, under proposed 

paragraph (h)(1)(iv), the NPRM 

proposed to require railroads to identify: 

(1) The number of intended 

enforcements by the PTC system 

(discussed above); and (2) any other 

instances in which the PTC system 

prevented an accident or incident on a 

host railroad’s PTC-governed main 

lines. Highlighting the confusion about 

these two separate elements, several 

comments from AAR, ASLRRA, and 

APTA assert that it is often impossible 

to determine if an intended PTC 

enforcement definitively prevented an 

accident or not.38

FRA maintains that the second metric 

referenced in paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of the 

NPRM—i.e., the number of instances in 

which the PTC system prevented an 

accident or incident—is necessary to 

enable FRA to evaluate and quantify 

PTC technology’s positive impact on rail 

safety. This second metric is a subset of 

the first metric (the total number of 

enforcements by the PTC system). FRA 

understands that a PTC system taking 

enforcement action does not necessarily 

mean that, in every case, an accident or 

incident was prevented, for several 

reasons. First, there may be cases when 

a PTC system unnecessarily initiates a 

brake application (an unintended 

enforcement), meaning the system, for 

some reason, took enforcement action 

when it was not warranted. Second, 

there may be cases when a PTC system 

properly takes enforcement action, but 

an accident or incident would not have 

occurred even if the PTC system did not 

take enforcement action. For example, a 

PTC system might take enforcement 

action properly to prevent a train from 

passing a red signal, but in this 

hypothetical, there was no chance of a 

train-to-train collision under the 

specific circumstances because the main 

line’s train schedule was such that only 

one train operates in that area each day. 

Although the PTC system properly took 

enforcement action, that specific 

enforcement by the PTC system did not 

actually prevent an accident or incident, 

as an accident or incident would not 

have necessarily occurred otherwise. 

For clarity about these two data 

points, this final rule recategorizes this 

second metric (the subset of 

enforcements that prevented an accident 

or incident) as a separate content 

requirement, under new paragraph 

(h)(1)(v). Specifically, new paragraph 

(h)(1)(v) requires a railroad to identify 

the number of enforcements by the PTC 

system in which an accident or incident 

was prevented, as discussed further 

below. Such a data point will help 

demonstrate the extent to which PTC 

systems are performing as designed and 

improving safety, by highlighting 

concrete instances in which 

enforcement by the PTC system actually 

prevented a train-to-train collision, 

over-speed derailment, incursion into 

an established work zone, or movement 

of a train through a switch left in the 

wrong position. 

In their comments, AAR, ASLRRA, 

and APTA raise concerns that this 

metric relies on speculation and 

subjective assessments. For example, in 

their comments, they assert that a PTC 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40165 

39FRA expects that APTA, AAR, and ASLRRA’s 

use of the phrase ‘‘only close calls’’ refers to close 

calls in general, where an accident or incident did 

not occur but might have under different 

circumstances. The industry might also be referring 

to the types of close calls that can be reported under 

the Confidential Close Call Reporting System 

(C3RS). Under C3RS, a close call is ‘‘any condition 

or event that may have the potential for more 

serious safety consequences. Some examples of 

close calls could be, but not limited to, a train 

missing a temporary speed restriction, a train 

striking a derail without derailing, a blue flag not 

removed after releasing equipment, or proper track 

protection not provided during track maintenance.’’ 

The National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, C3RS Frequently Asked Questions 

(2015), available at https://c3rs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/ 

C3RS_FAQ.pdf. Based on this definition and the 

general meaning of the term, FRA expects that close 

calls encompass a broader universe of scenarios 

than the fact-specific scenarios under new 

paragraph § 236.1029(h)(1)(v). 

40FRA’s Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) includes fields 

for host railroads to provide the raw denominators 

set forth under paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) through (vii), 

and FRA will calculate the rate of failures, utilizing 

those raw denominators. FRA has found that 

providing fields for railroads to enter such raw 

denominators, instead of percentages or rates, helps 

FRA accurately interpret railroads’ data, especially 

when comparing multiple railroads’ data or a single 

railroad’s data to its own prior reports. 

41As a note, in the NPRM, FRA categorized this 

content requirement under proposed paragraph 

(h)(1)(v). In this final rule, FRA categorizes this 

content requirement (the number of scheduled 

attempts at initialization of the PTC system) as new 

paragraph (h)(1)(vi), as (h)(1)(v) sets forth the 

content requirement about the number of specific 

instances in which a PTC system prevented an 

accident or incident. 

42For clarity, FRA notes that the citation of this 

proposed paragraph in the NPRM was (h)(1)(vi). 

New paragraph (h)(1)(vi) in this final rule concerns 

the number of scheduled attempts at initialization 

of the PTC system, which was proposed paragraph 

(h)(1)(v) in the NPRM. Given FRA’s decision to 

separate the two elements of proposed paragraph 

(h)(1)(iv) in the NPRM (into (h)(1)(iv) and (v) in the 

final rule), paragraph (h)(1) in the final rule 

includes the same number of paragraphs (i.e., (i) to 

(vii)) as the NPRM, even though this final rule does 

not adopt one of the proposed content requirements 

from the NPRM, based on AAR and ASLRRA’s 

comments. 

system might have prevented only a 

close call,39 or in the absence of a PTC 

system, a train crew might have taken 

subsequent action that would have 

prevented the accident. In response to 

these comments, FRA wishes to clarify 

the purpose and scope of new paragraph 

(h)(1)(v). This metric focuses on only 

specific, undisputed instances in which 

a PTC system actually prevented an 

accident or incident, as defined under 

49 CFR 225.5. In other words, host 

railroads should report, under 

paragraph (h)(1)(v), only the subset of 

PTC system enforcements where an 

accident or incident would have 

occurred under the exact circumstances, 

but for the intervention of the PTC 

system. For example, host railroads 

should count the following types of 

scenarios: A PTC system prevented a 

train from traveling into a siding and 

colliding with a train occupying the 

siding, or a PTC system prevented a 

train from moving past a red signal, 

where another train was occupying the 

track. These are only two examples of 

instances where a foreseeable accident 

or incident would have occurred, but for 

the PTC system’s intervention. These 

examples are not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to convey that 

paragraph (h)(1)(v) is focused on 

undisputed scenarios where an accident 

or incident would have otherwise 

occurred under the exact circumstances, 

as opposed to scenarios where there was 

only a chance of an accident or incident 

occurring if the facts or circumstances 

were changed or exacerbated. 

The types of statistics this final rule 

requires railroads to provide, under new 

paragraphs (h)(1)(iv) and (v), will help 

demonstrate the extent to which PTC 

systems are meeting their desired 

objectives. 

In new paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) and (vii), 

FRA requires a host railroad’s Biannual 

Report of PTC System Performance 

(Form FRA F 6180.152) to include 

certain contextual data to help FRA 

understand how the occurrences of PTC 

system initialization failures, cut outs, 

and malfunctions compare to all 

operations on that host railroad’s PTCgoverned main lines.40 Paragraphs 

(h)(1)(vi) and (vii) generally encompass 

the same types of denominators 

currently set forth in the Statutory 

Notification of PTC System Failures 

(Form FRA F 6180.177) with one 

notable difference. Unlike Form FRA F 

6180.177, this final rule requires the 

same two data points, under new 

paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) and (vii), from a 

host railroad and its applicable tenant 

railroads. In practice, FRA has found 

that host railroads providing certain 

denominators for tenant railroads and 

other denominators for the host railroad 

itself makes it difficult for FRA to 

evaluate the rate at which failures are 

occurring system-wide. FRA expects 

that requiring uniform figures will help 

the agency derive more accurate, 

objective, and comparable statistics. 

Furthermore, FRA understands that host 

railroads collect the type of data under 

paragraphs (h)(1)(vi) and (vii) for their 

own operations and their tenant 

railroads’ operations because several 

host railroads have provided those 

additional data points in their Statutory 

Notifications of PTC System Failures 

(Form FRA F 6180.177) to date. 

Specifically, new paragraph (h)(1)(vi) 

requires a host railroad’s Biannual 

Report of PTC System Performance 

(Form FRA F 6180.152) to include the 

number of scheduled attempts at 

initialization of the PTC system during 

the applicable reporting period, which 

will help FRA calculate the actual rate 

of that railroad’s PTC system 

initialization failures.41 FRA did not 

receive any comments on this 

paragraph, and this final rule adopts 

this paragraph, as proposed in the 

NPRM, without change. 

In the NPRM, under formerly 

proposed paragraph (h)(1)(vi), FRA also 

proposed to require a host railroad to 

identify the number of trains governed 

by the PTC system during the applicable 

reporting period, in its biannual report. 

FRA is eliminating this proposed 

content requirement in this final rule 

based on comments from AAR and 

ASLRRA explaining that this proposal 

would not result in objective data. AAR 

and ASLRRA note that different 

railroads use different metrics to 

identify and define ‘‘trains’’ (e.g., crew 

starts, brake tests, the addition or 

subtraction of portions of a train, 

interchanges between railroads with recrews, etc.). Their comments further 

explain that the number of trains 

involved in a geographic movement may 

vary considerably by railroad, creating 

the potential for inconsistency and data 

that cannot be compared reliably. FRA 

concurs with these comments and, 

therefore, FRA’s final rule does not 

adopt that proposed content 

requirement from the NPRM.42

New paragraph (h)(1)(vii), as 

proposed in the NPRM, requires a host 

railroad to provide the number of train 

miles governed by the PTC system 

during the applicable reporting period, 

in its biannual report. In their 

comments, AAR and ASLRRA express 

support for this metric, noting that it is 

not subject to variation across railroads, 

and there is little potential for 

inconsistency. From AAR and 

ASLRRA’s perspective, the metric of 

PTC train miles provides the clearest 

and most easily understood method for 

statistical normalization when 

calculating PTC system reliability. As 

this is the only comment FRA received 

regarding paragraph (h)(1)(vii) and FRA 

concurs with AAR and ASLRRA’s 

analysis, FRA’s final rule adopts that 

new paragraph as proposed in the 

NPRM. 

Finally, with respect to paragraph 

(h)(1) in general, an individual 

commented that FRA should require 

railroads to submit the following 

additional data in their Biannual 

Reports of PTC System Performance 

(Form FRA F 6180.152): ‘‘Any reports 

from hardware or software suppliers or 

vendors under § 263.1023(b) about 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40166 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

43 Docket Nos. FRA–2019–0004–N–20 and FRA– 

2020–0004–N–3; 85 FR 15022, 15027 (Mar. 16, 

2020). 

44 Id. 

software failures or reported 

vulnerabilities.’’ FRA declines to adopt 

this recommendation in the final rule 

because FRA already receives such 

reports on an ongoing basis. For 

example, pursuant to § 236.1023(h), PTC 

system suppliers and vendors must 

notify FRA directly of any safetyrelevant failure, defective condition, or 

previously unidentified hazard 

discovered by the supplier or vendor 

and the identity of each affected and 

notified railroad. Furthermore, pursuant 

to the instructions under § 236.1023(f), 

suppliers, vendors, and railroads must 

submit such reports to FRA within 15 

days of discovering the reportable issue. 

Therefore, FRA does not consider it 

necessary for host railroads to identify 

such reports in their Biannual Reports 

of PTC System Performance (Form FRA 

F 6180.152), as FRA already receives 

those reports within 15 days, depending 

on the circumstances, directly from 

suppliers, vendors, and railroads, as 

§ 236.1023 requires. 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed that new 

paragraph (h)(2) would require a host 

railroad’s Biannual Report of PTC 

System Performance (Form FRA F 

6180.152) to include a summary of any 

actions the host railroad and its tenant 

railroads are taking to improve the 

performance and reliability of the PTC 

system continually. In their comments, 

AAR and ASLRRA state that 

information regarding PTC system 

improvements is not related to biannual 

failure statistics, and any such summary 

should be optional. Based on AAR and 

ASLRRA’s comment, FRA is rewording 

the content requirement under new 

paragraph (h)(2) to clarify the scope and 

purpose of this type of summary and its 

relation to the biannual failure statistics. 

Specifically, new paragraph (h)(2) will 

require a host railroad’s biannual report 

to include a summary of any actions the 

host railroad and its tenant railroads are 

taking to reduce the frequency and rate 

of initialization failures, cut outs, and 

malfunctions, such as any actions to 

correct or eliminate systemic issues and 

specific problems. 

In other words, this narrative section 

will provide railroads an opportunity to 

explain briefly the steps they are taking 

to reduce the occurrence of PTC system 

failures, which could help put the 

biannual statistics into perspective. FRA 

did not propose including this content 

requirement under paragraph (h)(1) 

because that paragraph is track segmentspecific, and FRA acknowledges that 

railroads generally take a system-wide 

approach to improving the reliability 

and performance of their PTC systems. 

Accordingly, consistent with the NPRM, 

this final rule categorizes this content 

requirement in the separate paragraph 

(h)(2), and FRA’s Excel-based Form FRA 

F 6180.152 contains a field for railroads 

to enter this summary. 

In the NPRM, FRA outlined, under 

proposed paragraph (h)(3), the dates by 

which host railroads must submit their 

Biannual Reports of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152) to 

FRA—i.e., by July 31 (covering the 

period from January 1 to June 30), and 

by January 31 (covering the period from 

July 1 to December 31 of the prior 

calendar year). In its comments, APTA 

notes that it is reasonable for FRA to 

require submission of this data sooner 

than the current deadline. As a 

reminder, the current annual filing 

deadline under existing paragraph (h) is 

April 16th. Under the existing 

framework, FRA must wait until April 

16th each year to receive railroads’ 

failure-related data from the prior 

calendar year—data which is quite 

outdated by the time it is filed. 

Though APTA agrees that requiring 

earlier submission of the data is 

reasonable, APTA asserts that filing the 

data about 30 days after the reporting 

period ends might be insufficient to 

process and compile the data. APTA 

recommends that the reporting deadline 

should be ‘‘within 45 days of the 

reporting period.’’ However, FRA 

expects that providing railroads one full 

month (from the end of the half-year 

period) to complete Form FRA 6180.152 

will be sufficient and reasonable, given 

railroads’ experience, since 2016, in 

submitting their Quarterly PTC Progress 

Reports (Form FRA F 6180.165) one 

month after the end of the quarter. 

Furthermore, under the temporary 

Statutory Notification of PTC System 

Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), the 

due date for each monthly notification 

is currently the 15th of the following 

month—so, for example, the notification 

regarding initialization failures, cut 

outs, and malfunctions during 

December 2020 was due by January 15, 

2021. At least in part due to this 

temporary reporting requirement, which 

expires December 31, 2021, FRA expects 

that by the time this final rule becomes 

effective, host railroads will be 

experienced in regularly tracking the 

performance of their PTC systems. In 

fact, they are currently required to 

submit the data more quickly, within 15 

days of the end of each month. 

Accordingly, FRA expects that 

allowing one full month for railroads to 

prepare and submit their Biannual 

Reports of PTC System Performance 

(Form FRA F 6180.152) under new 

paragraph (h)(3) is a reasonable 

timeframe for this permanent reporting 

requirement. FRA did not receive any 

other comments about new paragraph 

(h)(3) and the reporting deadline 

therein, and this final rule adopts the 

proposal in the NPRM without change. 

In the NPRM, FRA proposed that new 

paragraph (h)(4) would explicitly 

require any applicable tenant railroads 

that operate on a host railroad’s PTCgoverned main line(s) to provide the 

necessary data to their applicable host 

railroads by a specific date before the 

biannual filing deadlines—i.e., by July 

15 (for the biannual report covering the 

period from January 1 to June 30) and 

by January 15 (for the biannual report 

covering the period from July 1 to 

December 31 of the prior calendar year). 

In their comments, AAR and ASLRRA 

explain that railroads have already 

established an efficient process to 

collect tenant railroads’ data, and FRA 

should leave it to the host and tenant 

railroads to determine the most effective 

way to coordinate regarding tenant 

railroads’ PTC-related failures. AAR and 

ASLRRA also remark that the deadlines 

specified in proposed paragraph (h)(4) 

of the NPRM may not allow adequate 

time for a host railroad to investigate a 

tenant railroad’s failures and capture 

them in the host railroad’s Biannual 

Report of PTC System Performance 

(Form FRA F 6180.152). They further 

note that, in practice, communications 

between host and tenant railroads may 

need to occur much earlier and on a 

continuous basis throughout a reporting 

period. Accordingly, AAR and ASLRRA 

recommend that FRA delete this 

proposal in the final rule, arguing it is 

unnecessary. 

As background, FRA’s proposed 

paragraph (h)(4) regarding tenant 

railroad responsibilities was based, in 

part, on comments AAR and APTA 

previously submitted during the 

comment period associated with the 

Statutory Notification of PTC System 

Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). 

Specifically, on February 28, 2020, AAR 

commented, ‘‘[i]f FRA is going to 

require hosts to report tenant data, the 

agency must impose a clear and direct 

requirement on tenants to report the 

desired information to their host 

railroad.’’ 43 In APTA’s comments, also 

dated February 28, 2020, APTA 

observed that a host railroad would 

need to obtain ‘‘all necessary logs to 

complete the analyses’’ from its tenant 

railroads to complete Form FRA F 

6180.177 accurately.44


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40167 

45 In addition, NJT comments that it strongly 

supports AAR and ASLRRA’s joint comments, in 

their entirety. 

46Furthermore, FRA expects that the number of 

enforcements by a PTC system during a reporting 

period is important information from a railroad’s 

perspective, for other purposes as well. For 

example, that data could inform a railroad about the 

specific events when its PTC system needed to 

initiate braking events, and help the railroad 

identify general train handling issues and 

opportunities for increased training. 

However, based on AAR and 

ASLRRA’s subsequent comments, dated 

February 16, 2021, on the NPRM, FRA 

can appreciate that specifying an exact 

deadline by which a tenant railroad 

must submit the pertinent data to its 

applicable host railroads could have the 

unintended consequence of constraining 

otherwise effective coordination 

between host and tenant railroads. For 

example, as AAR and ASLRRA 

recognize, certain host railroads might 

prefer to receive that data by an earlier 

date or on a continuous basis. Therefore, 

in this final rule, FRA is removing all 

references in new paragraph (h)(4) to 

specific dates by which tenant railroads 

must provide the data to their 

applicable host railroads. 

Instead, new paragraph (h)(4) 

establishes a general requirement for 

each applicable tenant railroad that 

operates on a host railroad’s PTCgoverned main line(s) to provide the 

information required under paragraphs 

(h)(1) and (2) to each applicable host 

railroad, without imposing a datespecific deadline. Consistent with the 

NPRM, the text in paragraph (h)(4) 

clarifies that a host railroad does not 

need to include data in Form FRA F 

6180.152 regarding a tenant railroad that 

is subject to an exception under 49 CFR 

236.1006(b)(4) or (5) during the 

applicable reporting period because 

such a tenant railroad’s movements 

would not be governed by PTC 

technology in that case, and there would 

not be any pertinent, performancerelated data to submit regarding that 

tenant railroad. 

In addition, new paragraph (h)(4) 

requires the applicable tenant railroads 

to provide the necessary data to each 

applicable host railroad on a continuous 

basis. FRA based this clause on AAR 

and ASLRRA’s recommendation that 

FRA defer to host and tenant railroads 

to coordinate and determine effective 

timelines for the exchange of this 

information. FRA also recognizes that 

this provision must refer, at least 

minimally, to a timeframe. Otherwise, it 

would be difficult or impossible for FRA 

to take enforcement action against a 

tenant railroad, if necessary, for failing 

to submit the necessary data to its host 

railroad to facilitate the host railroad’s 

timely submission of its Biannual 

Report of PTC System Performance 

(Form FRA F 6180.152). The language in 

new paragraph (h)(4) of this final rule 

requires tenant railroads to provide 

certain data to their host railroads, 

without unnecessarily interfering with 

host and tenant railroads’ existing 

processes for coordination and datasharing. 

Finally, new paragraph (h)(5) 

provides temporary regulatory relief to 

railroads utilizing ACSES II or ASES II 

(referred to hereinafter as ACSES II). 

This new provision is in response to 

extensive comments from AAR, 

ASLRRA, APTA, Amtrak, and NJT 

regarding new paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of 

this final rule. In their respective 

comments, AAR, ASLRRA, APTA, 

Amtrak, and NJT express concern that 

one metric (the number of enforcements 

by the PTC system) could impose a 

significant burden on railroads 

operating ACSES II because almost all 

ACSES II railroads need to obtain that 

data manually, based on that system’s 

current capabilities or configuration. For 

example, Amtrak’s comments 

summarize the issue in the following 

manner: ‘‘The ACSES system does not 

currently have the technical capability 

to automatically take enforcement data 

which is stored in a locomotive’s onboard computer, and to transmit that 

data . . . to a centralized collection and 

analysis location.’’ 

Amtrak’s and APTA’s comments each 

assert that this specific content 

requirement would create a tremendous 

strain on the resources of host railroads 

that operate ACSES II. Similarly, NJT 

notes that this requirement is especially 

onerous for railroads that utilize this 

type of PTC technology. Both Amtrak’s 

comments and AAR and ASLRRA’s 

comments describe the following 

burden estimate: An employee would 

manually perform a locomotive 

download by connecting a laptop to that 

engine (an approximately 20-minute 

process for each locomotive in the fleet), 

and then it would take approximately 

30 minutes to process and analyze the 

data from each locomotive. Amtrak, 

AAR, and ASLRRA assert that this 

process would occur every 48 hours, but 

they do not specify why. FRA expects 

that their estimated frequency of 

performing downloads might be due to 

ACSES II’s current onboard memory or 

storage limitations. 

In their respective comments, APTA 

and Amtrak recommend removing the 

content requirement under paragraph 

(h)(1)(iv) from the final rule. On the 

other hand, AAR and ASLRRA 45

recommend that FRA amend the 

proposal after consulting with ACSES II 

railroads regarding a more feasible 

manner for those railroads to compile 

the enforcement-related metric. From 

comments received and FRA’s 

experience overseeing PTC technology, 

FRA understands that this concern 

about paragraph (h)(1)(iv) (i.e., the 

number of enforcements by the PTC 

system) and the manual process to 

collect such data is specific only to 

some railroads utilizing ACSES II, and 

it does not implicate other types of PTC 

systems. 

Furthermore, FRA recognizes that the 

comments from Amtrak, AAR, and 

ASLRRA emphasize that ‘‘nearly all’’ or 

‘‘most’’ ACSES II host railroads 

currently obtain such data manually. 

There are currently seven host railroads 

that utilize ACSES II. Based on host 

railroads’ PTCSPs and other 

discussions, FRA is aware that at least 

one ACSES II host railroad currently 

utilizes an automated tool that remotely 

collects and analyzes data from the PTC 

system, including enforcements by the 

PTC system (the metric under paragraph 

(h)(1)(iv)) and the performance of 

various wayside equipment. This is 

important to underscore because it 

suggests to FRA that the other six 

ACSES II host railroads could likewise, 

over time, explore options or tools for 

obtaining their enforcement-related data 

remotely (i.e., without manually 

performing a locomotive download 

while connected to each locomotive). 

In addition to the tool one ACSES II 

host railroad is currently utilizing, FRA 

is aware that other automated options 

are available to collect the type of data 

under paragraph (h)(1)(iv). For example, 

FRA knows of at least one PTC system 

supplier with a software solution or tool 

that, among other capabilities, 

automatically generates reports 

regarding PTC technology’s performance 

and functioning, including 

enforcements by the PTC system. 

FRA declines to eliminate paragraph 

(h)(1)(iv) from the final rule, as the 

number of enforcements by a PTC 

system is an integral metric about PTC 

technology’s performance.46 Notably, no 

other alternatives were suggested by any 

commenter. Nonetheless, FRA’s final 

rule recognizes that currently, six of the 

35 applicable host railroads would 

likely need to collect this metric 

manually in the near term. To avoid 

imposing a significant burden on those 

railroads, this final rule, under new 

paragraph (h)(5), provides temporary 

relief from the content requirement 

under paragraph (h)(1)(iv) to any 

railroad operating a PTC system 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40168 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

47FRA understands that certain host railroads’ 

ACSES II systems are also classified under 

additional FRA Type Approvals, due to certain 

FRA-approved system variances. However, for this 

purpose, FRA is referring to the primary, 

underlying ACSES II and ASES II FRA Type 

Approvals, which all applicable ACSES II host 

railroads utilize, at least in part. 

48 49 U.S.C. 20157(j). For additional information 

about this temporary statutory reporting 

requirement, please see Section III–B (Expanding 

the Performance-related Reporting Requirements) in 

this final rule. 

49 58 FR 51735 (Sep. 30, 1993). 

classified under FRA Type Approval 

Nos. FRA–TA–2010–001 (ACSES II) or 

FRA–TA–2013–003 (ASES II).47

Specifically, those railroads must begin 

submitting the specific metric required 

under paragraph (h)(1)(iv) not later than 

January 31, 2023. ACSES II and ASES II 

host railroads may certainly begin 

submitting that metric in their Biannual 

Reports of PTC System Performance 

(Form FRA F 6180.152) before January 

31, 2023, but this provision offers 

flexibility to those railroads in the short 

term, based on comments received. 

To be clear, this relief applies to the 

single content requirement under 

paragraph (h)(1)(iv) only, and these 

railroads must provide all other data 

required under paragraph (h) in their 

Biannual Reports of PTC System 

Performance (Form FRA F 6180.152), 

once this final rule is effective. Between 

publication of this final rule and 

January 31, 2023, FRA will consult with 

the six applicable ACSES II railroads to 

help identify more feasible data 

collection approaches, consistent with 

the recommendation from AAR, 

ASLRRA, and NJT. In general, FRA 

expects paragraph (h)(5) will provide 

the six applicable ACSES II host 

railroads sufficient time either to refine 

and expedite their manual processes or 

to adopt a more automated process, with 

respect to paragraph (h)(1)(iv). 

On a separate topic and as noted 

above, existing § 236.1029(h) currently 

requires railroads, by April 16th each 

year, to submit an annual report of the 

number of PTC system failures that 

occurred during the previous calendar 

year. In their comments, APTA, AAR, 

and ASLRRA request that FRA exercise 

discretion with respect to the annual 

report due April 16, 2021, pursuant to 

existing paragraph (h). Specifically, 

APTA suggests that railroads should 

submit the required data from a limited 

period (from June 2020 to December 

2020), instead of calendar year 2020, as 

existing paragraph (h) requires. AAR 

and ASLRRA request that FRA accept a 

compilation of data from April 1, 2020, 

to March 31, 2021, to satisfy the annual 

reporting requirement due April 16, 

2021. FRA appreciates these comments, 

but declines these recommendations. 

FRA is not providing retroactive 

regulatory relief via this rulemaking. 

Existing § 236.1029(h) currently 

governs, and FRA’s changes to 

paragraph (h) will be effective after this 

final rule is published. 

In addition, AAR and ASLRRA 

recommend that once this final rule is 

effective, the new Biannual Report of 

PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 

6180.152) under revised paragraph (h) 

should replace the temporary reporting 

requirement FRA adopted in 2020. FRA 

declines this recommendation, as it is 

not legally permissible. AAR and 

ASLRRA are referring to the Statutory 

Notification of PTC System Failures 

(Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB Control 

No. 2130–0553), which implements the 

statutory reporting requirement under 

49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4). That separate 

reporting requirement remains in place, 

by statute, until December 31, 2021.48

V. Regulatory Impact and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) 

This final rule is a nonsignificant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 49 FRA made this 

determination by finding that the 

economic effects of this regulatory 

action will not exceed the $100 million 

annual threshold defined by Executive 

Order 12866. 

This final rule will reduce the burden 

on railroads while improving railroad 

safety. Specifically, in addition to the 

benefits quantified in the Industry 

Business Benefits section below, FRA 

expects this final rule will result in 

safety benefits for the railroad industry. 

For example, the expedited RFA process 

in this final rule will accelerate 

railroads’ ability to update their FRAcertified PTC systems to ensure safe 

operations (e.g., through ongoing, 

necessary maintenance) and enhance 

the technology (e.g., by adding new 

functionality or improving a PTC 

system’s reliability and operability). In 

short, this final rule will enable 

railroads to deploy safety improvements 

and technological advancements more 

efficiently and frequently. In addition, 

the expanded reporting requirement 

will help railroads and FRA identify 

systemic failures more quickly and 

precisely, enabling swifter intervention 

and resolution. 

To enable FRA to oversee the 

performance and reliability of railroads’ 

PTC systems effectively, FRA is revising 

the reporting requirement under 49 CFR 

236.1029(h). FRA’s changes include, but 

are not limited to, increasing the 

reporting frequency from annual to 

biannual, clarifying the types of 

statistics and information the reports 

must include, and expanding the 

reporting requirement to encompass 

positive performance-related 

information. Accordingly, FRA 

estimates that the number of hours it 

will take a host railroad to report the 

required information under 

§ 236.1029(h) will increase under this 

final rule. To provide clarity and 

precision regarding the reporting 

requirement under § 236.1029(h), FRA 

developed an Excel-based Biannual 

Report of PTC System Performance 

(Form FRA F 6180.152) that railroads 

must utilize to satisfy this reporting 

requirement. 

While FRA is expanding this existing 

reporting requirement, FRA’s final rule 

reduces the regulatory and 

administrative burden on host railroads 

under § 236.1021. Specifically, FRA is 

establishing a streamlined process to 

enable the railroad industry to make 

technological advancements to FRAcertified PTC systems more efficiently. 

Instead of the existing RFA approval 

process under § 236.1021 for FRAapproved PTCSPs and FRA-certified 

PTC systems, FRA’s final rule: (1) 

Requires host railroads to comply with 

a streamlined process, including a 

concise RFA; and (2) establishes a 45- 

day FRA decision deadline. This more 

efficient process will result in business 

benefits for host railroads and savings 

for the government. For example, FRA’s 

simplification of the content 

requirements associated with an RFA to 

a PTCSP under § 236.1021 will reduce 

the number of burden hours per RFA. In 

addition, FRA is permitting host 

railroads that utilize the same type of 

PTC system to submit joint RFAs to 

their PTCDPs and PTCSPs, thus 

reducing the number of RFAs railroads 

must submit in the future. 

Currently, 35 host railroads must 

submit RFAs before making certain 

changes to their PTCSPs and PTC 

systems under § 236.1021, with many 

host railroads projected to submit one or 

two RFAs per year. Over the next ten 

years, FRA expects there will be an 

average increase of 1.5 new PTCgoverned host railroads per year, 

beginning in the second year, for a total 

of approximately 14 additional host 

railroads. Table A summarizes the types 

of PTC systems the 35 PTC-mandated 

host railroads implemented, as of 2020, 

and the approximate number of RFAs 

host railroads would file under FRA’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40169 

50Several host railroads have implemented 

multiple types of PTC systems. 

51Previously, FRA estimated it would receive, on 

average, approximately 10 RFAs to railroads’ 

PTCIPs, PTCDPs, and PTCSPs each year. However, 

from discussions with PTC-mandated railroads, 

FRA found the estimate did not account adequately 

for the number of RFAs host railroads intend to 

submit to their PTCSPs annually under 

§ 236.1021(h)(3)–(4) without the final rule. Tables 

A, B, and F in this final rule estimate more 

accurately the approximate average number of RFAs 

host railroads would submit to their PTCSPs each 

year under the existing regulations and under the 

final rule. See 84 FR 72121, 72127 (Dec. 30, 2019). 

existing regulations, without this final 

rule. 

TABLE A—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF REQUIRED RFAS TO PTCSPS BY TYPE OF PTC SYSTEM

Type of PTC system 

PTC systems being 

implemented by 

host railroads 

(as of 2020) 50

Annual 

number of 

RFAs per 

PTC system 

Total 

number of 

RFAs 

ACSES II ............................................................................................................................ 8 1 8 

CBTC ................................................................................................................................. 1 1 1 

E–ATC ............................................................................................................................... 5 1 5 

ITCS ................................................................................................................................... 1 1 1 

I–ETMS .............................................................................................................................. 26 2 52 

Total ............................................................................................................................ 41 ........................ 67 

Currently, without this final rule, FRA 

estimates the 35 host railroads would 

need to submit approximately 67 RFAs 

annually given the types of changes the 

industry intends to make to their PTC 

systems each year under 49 CFR 

236.1021(h)(3)–(4) in the future.51 FRA 

estimates that the current hourly burden 

is 160 hours per RFA (without this final 

rule), based on previously approved 

PTC Information Collection Requests 

(ICRs). 

Table B below provides the current 

hourly burden and costs that host 

railroads face when submitting RFAs to 

their PTCSPs under the existing 

§ 236.1021. 

TABLE B—CURRENT HOST RAILROAD HOURLY BURDEN AND COST FOR RFAS TO PTCSPS

Year Submissions Hour burden per 

submission 

Total 

annual cost 7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ................................................................................... 67 160 $830,505 $830,505 $830,505 

2 ................................................................................... 69 160 855,296 799,342 830,385 

3 ................................................................................... 70 160 867,692 757,876 817,883 

4 ................................................................................... 72 160 892,483 728,532 816,749 

5 ................................................................................... 73 160 904,879 690,328 803,973 

6 ................................................................................... 75 160 929,670 662,842 801,942 

7 ................................................................................... 76 160 942,066 627,738 788,965 

8 ................................................................................... 78 160 966,857 602,110 786,143 

9 ................................................................................... 79 160 979,252 569,934 773,031 

10 ................................................................................. 81 160 1,004,044 546,133 769,516 

Total ...................................................................... 740 .............................. 9,172,744 6,815,340 8,019,091 

Costs 

As described above, FRA is also 

amending the reporting requirement 

under 49 CFR 236.1029(h) by increasing 

the frequency from annual to biannual, 

clarifying the types of statistics and 

information the reports must include, 

and expanding the reporting 

requirement to encompass positive 

performance-related information. 

Though FRA’s final rule will increase 

the number of required submissions, as 

well as the hourly burden per 

submission, FRA estimates the new 

costs will be offset by the business 

benefits derived from the final rule’s 

changes as presented in the Business 

Benefits section below. 

To clarify the information FRA is 

requiring host railroads to submit under 

§ 236.1029(h), FRA created an Excelbased form for the Biannual Report of 

PTC System Performance (Form FRA F 

6180.152). This form incorporates the 

information currently required under 

§ 236.1029(h) and the additional types 

of information specified in this final 

rule. Host railroads with FRA-certified 

PTC systems are generally experienced 

in compiling this type of information, 

given the corresponding reporting 

requirements under the temporary 

Statutory Notification of PTC System 

Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177, OMB 

Control No. 2130–0553). 

During the comment period for the 

NPRM, FRA received a general request 

from APTA on behalf of the commuter 

rail industry. APTA requests that FRA 

review its cost-benefit analysis 

associated with the changes to 

§ 236.1029(h) proposed in the NPRM, 

including establishing the Biannual 

Report of PTC System Performance 

(Form FRA F 6180.152). Based on 

comments received, FRA reviewed and 

updated its burden estimate associated 

with expanding the reporting 

requirement under § 236.1029(h). The 

table below displays FRA’s updated 

estimate of the burden associated with 

§ 236.1029(h). Please note that the 

increased burden estimate is based on 

FRA’s review of its proposed revisions 

to § 236.1029(h) based on comments 

received, and not on any substantial 

changes in § 236.1029(h) from the 

NPRM to the final rule. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40170 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

52 1,400 = (35 host railroad submissions × 40 

hours) + (0 host railroad submissions × 20 hours). 

This calculation is repeated throughout this table. 

53 1,680 = (35 host railroad submissions × 48 

hours) + (0 host railroad submissions × 28 hours). 

This calculation is repeated throughout this table. 

ESTIMATE CHANGES FROM NPRM TO FINAL RULE

Description NPRM 

(hours) 

Final rule 

(hours) 

Form FRA F 6180.152 Burden (First Three Years) ................................................................................................ 12 48 

Form FRA F 6180.152 Burden (After Three Years) ............................................................................................... 10 28 

The hourly burden associated with 

submitting the information required 

under § 236.1029(h) will increase 

initially from 8 hours per report 

(without the final rule) to 48 hours per 

report (with the final rule), on average. 

FRA estimates that, over time, railroads 

will develop processes that will 

decrease the reporting burden from 48 

hours per submission to 28 hours per 

submission. FRA assumes this decrease 

will begin in the fourth year of the 

analysis as host railroads become more 

familiar with the Excel-based form and 

as they develop processes to improve 

their data collection and reporting. FRA 

did not receive any comments that 

dispute FRA’s assumption that railroads 

will refine and expedite their reporting 

processes over time. 

This analysis accounts for the 

marginal increase of 40 hours for the 

first three years of a host railroad 

reporting and 20 hours for each 

subsequent year, as compared to the 8- 

hour burden estimate associated with 

the existing § 236.1029(h). Table C 

below shows the marginal hourly 

burden increase associated with FRA’s 

expansion of the reporting requirement 

under § 236.1029(h), under the final 

rule. Consistent with the previously 

stated estimates, FRA assumes that 35 

host railroads will submit these 

biannual reports in the first year, and 

the number of applicable host railroads 

will increase by 1.5 railroads, on 

average, each year. 

TABLE C—TEN-YEAR HOST RAILROAD MARGINAL BURDEN INCREASE

Year 

Number of 

host railroad 

submissions 

with marginal 

40-hour burden 

Number of 

host railroad 

submissions 

with marginal 

20-hour burden 

Total marginal 

hourly burden 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 35 0 52 1,400 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 37 0 1,460 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 38 0 1,520 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 38 840 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 3 38 880 

6 ....................................................................................................................................... 5 38 960 

7 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 40 960 

8 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 42 1,000 

9 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 43 1,020 

10 ..................................................................................................................................... 4 45 1,060 

Total ................................................................................................................................. 136 284 11,100 

In addition to the marginal increase, 

host railroads will face an additional 

reporting burden due to the change from 

annual to biannual reporting. This 

analysis accounts for the new burden of 

48 hours for the first three years of a 

host railroad’s reporting and 28 hours 

for each subsequent year to account for 

the changes from annual to biannual 

reporting and the expanded content 

requirements under § 236.1029(h). Table 

D below shows the new hourly burden 

under this final rule for the ten-year 

period of this analysis. 

TABLE D—TEN-YEAR HOST RAILROAD NEW SUBMISSIONS

Year 

Number of 

host railroad 

submissions 

with new 

48-hour burden 

Number of 

host railroad 

submissions 

with new 

28-hour burden 

Total new 

hourly burden 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 35 0 53 1,680 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 37 0 1,752 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 38 0 1,824 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 38 1,160 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 3 38 1,208 

6 ....................................................................................................................................... 5 38 1,304 

7 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 40 1,312 

8 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 42 1,368 

9 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 43 1,396 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40171 

54 2019 Composite Surface Transportation Board 

(STB) Professional and Administrative hourly wage 

rate of $44.27 burdened by 75-percent ($44.27 × 

1.75 = $77.47). 

55Total Annual Host Railroad Submissions Cost 

= Total New Complete Hour Burden × $77.47. 56FRA expects that permitting host railroads to 

submit joint RFAs will impact primarily host 

railroads implementing I–ETMS and E–ATC 

because each I–ETMS system is relatively similar 

and manufactured by the same set of suppliers, and 

each E–ATC system is relatively similar and 

manufactured by the same set of suppliers. 

TABLE D—TEN-YEAR HOST RAILROAD NEW SUBMISSIONS—Continued 

Year 

Number of 

host railroad 

submissions 

with new 

48-hour burden 

Number of 

host railroad 

submissions 

with new 

28-hour burden 

Total new 

hourly burden 

10 ..................................................................................................................................... 4 45 1,452 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 136 284 14,456 

FRA calculated the total additional 

burden hours for submissions by 

multiplying the respective number of 

submissions with their associated 

annual burden for each individual year. 

The summation of the hourly burden is 

multiplied by the fully burdened wage 

rate of a Professional and 

Administrative employee. For purposes 

of this analysis, FRA uses the fully 

burdened rate of $77.47 to calculate 

both the costs and cost savings 

throughout this analysis.54 Table E 

provides the ten-year cost to the railroad 

industry associated with the expanded 

reporting requirement under 

§ 236.1029(h). 

TABLE E—TEN-YEAR TOTAL COSTS

Year 

Total 

marginal 

hour burden 

Total new 

submission 

hour burden 

Total new 

complete 

hour burden 

Total annual 

host railroad 

submissions 

cost 55

7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ........................................................... 1,400 1,680 3,080 $238,615 $238,615 $238,615 

2 ........................................................... 1,460 1,752 3,212 248,842 232,562 241,594 

3 ........................................................... 1,520 1,824 3,344 259,068 226,280 244,196 

4 ........................................................... 840 1,160 2,000 154,945 126,481 141,797 

5 ........................................................... 880 1,208 2,088 161,763 123,408 143,724 

6 ........................................................... 960 1,304 2,264 175,398 125,056 151,300 

7 ........................................................... 960 1,312 2,272 176,018 117,288 147,412 

8 ........................................................... 1,000 1,368 2,368 183,455 114,246 149,166 

9 ........................................................... 1,020 1,396 2,416 187,174 108,937 147,757 

10 ......................................................... 1,060 1,452 2,512 194,611 105,855 149,153 

Total .............................................. 11,100 14,456 25,556 1,979,887 1,518,730 1,754,713 

* Note: Table may not sum due to rounding. 

FRA estimates that the total cost to 

the railroad industry will be $1.5 

million, discounted at 7 percent, or $1.8 

million, discounted at 3 percent. In 

terms of governmental costs associated 

with the expanded reporting 

requirement, including the increase 

from annual to biannual reporting, FRA 

expects it will cost approximately 

$10,000, over the ten-year period, to 

review the additional data railroads will 

submit in their Biannual Reports of PTC 

System Performance (Form FRA F 

6180.152). As FRA considers these 

additional governmental costs to be de 

minimis, they are not included in the 

economic analysis. 

Industry Business Benefits 

Currently 35 host railroads are 

required to submit an RFA before 

changing safety-critical elements of their 

PTC systems and their PTCSPs under 

§ 236.1021. FRA estimates that over the 

next ten years, the number of PTCgoverned host railroads will increase by 

approximately 14, for a total of 49 host 

railroads. For purposes of this analysis, 

FRA estimates that approximately 1.5 

new host railroads are added each year, 

beginning in year two. 

Currently, under FRA’s existing 

regulations and without this final rule, 

FRA estimates that host railroads would 

submit 67 annual RFAs to their PTCSPs 

that FRA must review and approve 

before those host railroads change and 

improve their PTC systems. Under this 

final rule, FRA is permitting host 

railroads that utilize the same type of 

PTC system to submit joint RFAs to 

their PTCDPs and PTCSPs.56

Table F below shows the number of 

RFAs to PTCSPs that would be 

submitted under the existing regulations 

compared to the final rule. Over a tenyear period, FRA estimates that the 

changes described in this final rule will 

result in railroads submitting 

approximately 590 fewer RFAs. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40172 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

57For I–ETMS systems, FRA estimates the total 

number of annual RFAs to PTCSPs would be 

reduced from 52 (under the existing regulation) to 

4 (under the final rule)—i.e., 2 RFAs per year from 

the set of railroads whose I–ETMS is certified as a 

mixed PTC system and 2 RFAs per year from the 

set of railroads whose I–ETMS is certified as a nonvital, overlay PTC system. 

TABLE F—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF RFAS TO PTCSPS

Current types of PTC systems 

Approximate 

number of 

RFAs to 

PTCSPs per 

year under 

existing 

regulations 

Approximate 

number of 

RFAs to 

PTCSPs per 

year under final 

rule 

Total # of RFAs 

to PTCSPs 

eliminated 

under final rule 

ACSES II ................................................................................................................................ 8 8 0 

CBTC ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1 0 

E–ATC ................................................................................................................................... 5 1 4 

ITCS ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1 0 

I–ETMS .................................................................................................................................. 52 57 4 48 

Subtotal in Year 1: .......................................................................................................... 67 15 52 

FRA estimates the current burden is 

160 hours per RFA to a PTCSP based on 

the existing RFA content requirements. 

FRA’s simplification of the content 

requirements in this final rule will 

reduce the burden hours by 50 percent, 

resulting in 80 burden hours per RFA. 

Table G provides the estimated ten-year 

cost to host railroads based on FRA 

simplifying the RFA process under 

§ 236.1021, in this final rule. 

TABLE G—TEN-YEAR COST OF JOINT RFAS AND SIMPLIFIED RFAS

Year Submissions Hour burden 

per submission 

Total annual 

cost savings 7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ............................................................................. 15 80 $92,967 $92,967 $92,967 

2 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 86,885 90,259 

3 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 81,201 87,630 

4 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 75,889 85,078 

5 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 70,924 82,600 

6 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 66,284 80,194 

7 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 61,948 77,858 

8 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 57,895 75,591 

9 ............................................................................. 15 80 92,967 54,108 73,389 

10 ........................................................................... 15 80 92,967 50,568 71,251 

Total ................................................................ 150 ................................ 929,670 698,669 816,818 

Overall, FRA expects that simplifying 

the content requirements for RFAs to 

PTCSPs, as well as permitting host 

railroads utilizing the same type of PTC 

system to submit joint RFAs, will result 

in business benefits of approximately 

$6.1 million, discounted at 7 percent, or 

$7.2 million, discounted at 3 percent, 

over the ten-year period of this analysis. 

TABLE H—TOTAL TEN-YEAR INDUSTRY BUSINESS BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH REVISED § 236.1021 

Year 

Current host 

railroad costs 

(without final 

rule) 

Cost of joint 

RFAs and 

simplified 

RFA process 

(with final rule) 

Total annual 

business 

benefits 

7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ............................................................................. $830,505 $92,967 $737,538 $737,538 $737,538 

2 ............................................................................. 855,296 92,967 762,329 712,457 740,126 

3 ............................................................................. 867,692 92,967 774,725 676,675 730,253 

4 ............................................................................. 892,483 92,967 799,516 652,643 731,671 

5 ............................................................................. 904,879 92,967 811,912 619,404 721,373 

6 ............................................................................. 929,670 92,967 836,703 596,558 721,747 

7 ............................................................................. 942,066 92,967 849,099 565,790 711,107 

8 ............................................................................. 966,857 92,967 873,890 544,215 710,552 

9 ............................................................................. 979,252 92,967 886,285 515,826 699,642 

10 ........................................................................... 1,004,044 92,967 911,077 495,565 698,264 

Total ................................................................ 9,172,744 929,670 8,243,074 6,116,671 7,202,273 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40173 

In addition, FRA’s changes to the RFA 

process will result in savings for the 

government, through a reduction in time 

needed to review an RFA with the 

existing contents under 49 CFR 

236.1021(d)(1)–(7). Under the final rule, 

FRA will review a streamlined RFA 

with the more focused information that 

new paragraph (m)(2) requires. 

Table I below outlines the 

assumptions FRA used to calculate the 

government savings. FRA’s estimates 

assume there will be PTC system 

changes that are complex and will 

require additional time to review, as 

well as system changes that are less 

complex. 

TABLE I—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COST ASSUMPTIONS

Staff level 

Average 

employee 

count 

needed 

Average 

hourly 

burden 

Average 

hourly 

salary 

Fully 

burdened 

rate 

Savings per 

staff level 

GS–15 .................................................................... 1 10 $77.75 $136.07 $1,315 

GS–14 .................................................................... 2 105 62.34 109.10 19,171 

GS–13 .................................................................... 2 119 49.71 86.99 20,646 

Total ................................................................ 5 234 189.81 332.17 41,132 

Without the final rule, FRA would be 

required to review and approve or deny 

all 67 of the RFAs to PTCSPs that would 

be submitted annually. FRA estimates 

that over the next ten years, the total 

cost to the government would be $30.4 

million, undiscounted. Table J provides 

an overview of the ten-year government 

burden without this final rule. 

TABLE J—TEN-YEAR GOVERNMENT BURDEN

[Without final rule] 

Year Submissions 

Government 

cost to review 

each submission 

Total annual 

cost 7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ............................................................................. 67 $41,132 $2,755,871 $2,755,871 $2,755,871 

2 ............................................................................. 69 41,132 2,838,136 2,652,463 2,755,471 

3 ............................................................................. 70 41,132 2,879,268 2,514,864 2,713,986 

4 ............................................................................. 72 41,132 2,961,533 2,417,493 2,710,222 

5 ............................................................................. 73 41,132 3,002,665 2,290,719 2,667,829 

6 ............................................................................. 75 41,132 3,084,930 2,199,512 2,661,088 

7 ............................................................................. 76 41,132 3,126,062 2,083,027 2,618,028 

8 ............................................................................. 78 41,132 3,208,327 1,997,985 2,608,664 

9 ............................................................................. 79 41,132 3,249,460 1,891,215 2,565,153 

10 ........................................................................... 81 41,132 3,331,724 1,812,237 2,553,489 

Total ................................................................ 740 411,324 30,437,976 22,615,387 26,609,802 

Based on the changes to § 236.1021 in 

this final rule, the number of RFAs that 

FRA will review will decrease from 67 

to 15 per year, beginning in the first 

year. This reduction is the same as seen 

in the government savings estimate 

above. The resulting reduction means 

that the new government cost to review 

the RFAs will be reduced to $6.2 

million, undiscounted, over the ten-year 

period. Table K below outlines the 

government costs under the final rule. 

TABLE K—TEN-YEAR NEW GOVERNMENT BURDEN

Year Submissions 

Government 

cost to review 

each submission 

Total annual 

government 

cost 

7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ............................................................................. 15 $41,132 $616,986 $616,986 $616,986 

2 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 576,622 599,016 

3 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 538,899 581,568 

4 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 503,644 564,630 

5 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 470,696 548,184 

6 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 439,902 532,218 

7 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 411,124 516,716 

8 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 384,228 501,666 

9 ............................................................................. 15 41,132 616,986 359,091 487,054 

10 ........................................................................... 15 41,132 616,986 335,600 472,868 

Total ................................................................ 150 411,324 6,169,860 4,636,793 5,420,906 

FRA estimates that its changes to 

§ 236.1021 will result in a ten-year 

government savings of approximately 

$18.0 million, discounted at 7 percent, 

or $21.2 million, discounted at 3 

percent. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40174 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE L—GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SAVINGS

Year 

Current 

government 

cost to review 

submissions 

(without final rule) 

Government 

cost to review 

submissions 

(with final rule) 

Total annual 

government 

savings 

7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ........................................................................... $2,755,871 $616,986 $2,138,885 $2,138,885 $2,138,885 

2 ........................................................................... 2,838,136 616,986 2,221,150 2,075,841 2,156,456 

3 ........................................................................... 2,879,268 616,986 2,262,282 1,975,965 2,132,418 

4 ........................................................................... 2,961,533 616,986 2,344,547 1,913,849 2,145,592 

5 ........................................................................... 3,002,665 616,986 2,385,679 1,820,023 2,119,645 

6 ........................................................................... 3,084,930 616,986 2,467,944 1,759,610 2,128,870 

7 ........................................................................... 3,126,062 616,986 2,509,076 1,671,904 2,101,312 

8 ........................................................................... 3,208,327 616,986 2,591,341 1,613,757 2,106,998 

9 ........................................................................... 3,249,460 616,986 2,632,474 1,532,124 2,078,099 

10 ......................................................................... 3,331,724 616,986 2,714,738 1,476,638 2,080,621 

Total .............................................................. 30,437,976 6,169,860 24,268,116 17,978,594 21,188,896 

Results 

This final rule will reduce the burden 

on railroads while not adversely 

affecting railroad safety. To oversee the 

performance and reliability of railroads’ 

PTC systems, FRA is expanding the 

reporting requirement under 49 CFR 

236.1029(h), as described above. FRA 

estimates that the total ten-year industry 

cost associated with the expanded 

reporting requirement under 

§ 236.1029(h) will be $1.5 million, 

discounted at 7 percent, or $1.8 million, 

discounted at 3 percent. 

Although FRA is expanding that 

reporting requirement, this final rule 

reduces the regulatory and 

administrative burden on host railroads 

overall. For example, the simplification 

of RFAs to PTCSPs will reduce the 

number of burden hours per RFA. Also, 

FRA is permitting host railroads that 

utilize the same type of PTC system to 

submit joint RFAs to their PTCDPs and 

PTCSPs, thus reducing the number of 

RFAs railroads must submit in the 

future. 

During the ten-year period in FRA’s 

analysis, FRA expects that its changes 

will result in business benefits for the 

railroad industry of $6.1 million, 

discounted at 7 percent, or $7.2 million, 

discounted at 3 percent. In addition, 

during the same period, FRA expects 

that these changes will produce 

government savings amounting to $18.0 

million, discounted at 7 percent, or 

$21.2 million, discounted at 3 percent. 

FRA estimates that the total net 

benefits associated with this final rule 

will be $22.6 million, discounted at 7 

percent, or $26.6 million, discounted at 

3 percent. The annualized cost savings 

will be $3.2 million, discounted at 7 

percent, or $3.1 million, discounted at 

3 percent. 

TABLE M—TOTAL TEN-YEAR NET BENEFITS

Year 

Total 

industry 

business 

benefits 

Total 

government 

savings 

Total 

industry 

costs 

Total 

net 

benefits 

7-Percent 3-Percent 

1 ............................................................... $737,538 $2,138,885 $238,615 $2,637,808 $2,637,808 $2,637,808 

2 ............................................................... 762,329 2,221,150 248,842 2,734,637 2,555,736 2,654,988 

3 ............................................................... 774,725 2,262,282 259,068 2,777,939 2,426,359 2,618,474 

4 ............................................................... 799,516 2,344,547 154,945 2,989,118 2,440,011 2,735,466 

5 ............................................................... 811,912 2,385,679 161,763 3,035,828 2,316,019 2,697,294 

6 ............................................................... 836,703 2,467,944 175,398 3,129,249 2,231,111 2,699,318 

7 ............................................................... 849,099 2,509,076 176,018 3,182,157 2,120,406 2,665,007 

8 ............................................................... 873,890 2,591,341 183,455 3,281,776 2,043,725 2,668,384 

9 ............................................................... 886,285 2,632,474 187,174 3,331,585 1,939,013 2,629,984 

10 ............................................................. 911,077 2,714,738 194,611 3,431,204 1,866,348 2,629,732 

Total .................................................. 8,243,074 24,268,116 1,979,887 30,531,303 22,576,536 26,636,455 

Annualized ............................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 3,214,391 3,122,605 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Executive Order 13272; Regulatory 

Flexibility Certification 

The final rule will apply to all host 

railroads subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157, 

including, in relevant part, five Class II 

or III, short line, or terminal railroads, 

and 23 intercity passenger railroads or 

commuter railroads. FRA has 

determined that one of these railroads is 

considered a small entity based on 

revenue and employee size. Therefore, 

FRA has determined that this final rule 

will have an impact on a substantial 

number of small entities (one affected 

small entity out of one applicable small 

entity). 

However, FRA has determined that 

the impact on the small entity affected 

by the final rule will not be significant 

as the costs are minimal and the 

business benefits of this rule outweigh 

the costs. Therefore, the impact on the 

small entity will be positive, taking the 

form of business benefits that are greater 

than any new costs imposed on the 

entity. 

For the railroad industry over a tenyear period, FRA estimates that issuing 

the final rule will result in new costs of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40175 

58See also 84 FR 72121 (Dec. 30, 2019) (60-day 

ICR notice); 85 FR 15022 (Mar. 16, 2020) (30-day 

ICR notice); 85 FR 82400 (Dec. 18, 2020) (NPRM). 

On June 5, 2020, OMB approved the revised ICR, 

entitled ‘‘PTC and Other Signal Systems,’’ under 

OMB Control No. 2130–0553, for a period of three 

years, expiring on June 30, 2023. 

59The burdens associated with Forms FRA F 

6180.165 (Quarterly PTC Progress Reports) and FRA 

F 6180.166 (Annual PTC Progress Reports) have 

been completed. By law, railroads’ final Quarterly 

PTC Progress Reports were due on January 31, 2021, 

and railroads’ final Annual PTC Progress Reports 

were due on March 31, 2021. See 49 U.S.C. 

20157(c)(1), (2). 

60The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 

2019 STB Full Year Wage A&B data series using the 

appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that 

includes a 75-percent overhead charge. For 

Executives, Officials, and Staff Assistants, this cost 

amounts to $120 per hour. For Professional/ 

Administrative staff, this cost amounts to $77 per 

hour. 

61The temporary Statutory Notification of PTC 

System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) expires on 

approximately December 31, 2021, per 49 U.S.C. 

20157(j). 

62 In response to a public comment, FRA revised 

the average time per submission from 12 hours, as 

estimated in the NPRM, to 48 hours. In addition, 

for the applicable three-year period for PRA 

purposes, FRA revised the number of annual 

responses from 76 to 73, which aligns with the 

economic estimates in this final rule, including the 

assumption that each year 1.5 additional PTCgoverned railroads will submit these biannual 

reports. 

$1.5 million, discounted at 7 percent, 

and $1.8 million, discounted at 3 

percent. FRA estimates that $37,852 

(discounted at 7 percent) and $43,212 

(discounted at 3 percent) of the total 

costs associated with implementing the 

final rule will be borne by a small 

entity. Therefore, less than three percent 

of the final rule’s total costs will be 

borne by a small entity. Additionally, 

FRA estimates that the final rule will 

result in business benefits of $149,474, 

discounted at 7 percent, and $173,983, 

discounted at 3 percent, for the small 

entity impacted by this final rule. In 

total, for the ten-year period of this 

analysis, the final rule will result in a 

net benefit of $111,623, discounted at 7 

percent, and $130,770, discounted at 3 

percent, for a small entity. 

Consistent with the findings in FRA’s 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis, 

and the lack of any comments received 

on it, the Administrator of FRA hereby 

certifies that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this final rule are being 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. Please note that 

any new or revised requirements, as 

adopted in the final rule, are marked by 

asterisks (*) in the table below. The 

sections that contain the current and 

new information collection 

requirements under OMB Control No. 

2130–0553 58 and the estimated time to 

fulfill each requirement are as follows: 

CFR section/subject 59 Respondent universe Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

dollar cost 

equivalent 60

235.6(c)—Expedited application for approval of certain 

changes described in this section.

42 railroads ................. 10 expedited applications.5 hours ................. 50 $3,850 

—Copy of expedited application to labor union .......... 42 railroads ................. 10 copies .................... 30 minutes ............ 5 385 

—Railroad letter rescinding its request for expedited 

application of certain signal system changes.

42 railroads ................. 1 letter ........................ 6 hours ................. 6 462 

—Revised application for certain signal system 

changes.

42 railroads ................. 1 application ............... 5 hours ................. 5 385 

—Copy of railroad revised application to labor union 42 railroads ................. 1 copy ......................... 30 minutes ............ .5 39 

236.1—Railroad maintained signal plans at all 

interlockings, automatic signal locations, and controlled 

points, and updates to ensure accuracy.

700 railroads ............... 25 plan changes ......... 15 minutes ............ 6.3 485 

236.15—Designation of automatic block, traffic control, 

train stop, train control, cab signal, and PTC territory in 

timetable instructions.

700 railroads ............... 10 timetable instructions.30 minutes ............ 5 385 

236.18—Software management control plan—New railroads.2 railroads ................... 2 plans ........................ 160 hours ............. 320 24,640 

236.23(e)—The names, indications, and aspects of roadway and cab signals shall be defined in the carrier’s 

Operating Rule Book or Special Instructions. Modifications shall be filed with FRA within 30 days after such 

modifications become effective.

700 railroads ............... 2 modifications ........... 1 hour ................... 2 154 

236.587(d)—Certification and departure test results ......... 742 railroads ............... 4,562,500 train departures.5 seconds ............. 6,337 487,949 

236.905(a)—Railroad Safety Program Plan (RSPP)— 

New railroads.

2 railroads ................... 2 RSPPs ..................... 40 hours ............... 80 6,160 

236.913(a)—Filing and approval of a joint Product Safety 

Plan (PSP).

742 railroads ............... 1 joint plan .................. 2,000 hours .......... 2,000 240,000 

(c)(1)—Informational filing/petition for special approval.742 railroads ............... 0.5 filings/approval petitions.50 hours ............... 25 1,925 

(c)(2)—Response to FRA’s request for further data 

after informational filing.

742 railroads ............... 0.25 data calls/documents.5 hours ................. 1 77 

(d)(1)(ii)—Response to FRA’s request for further information within 15 days after receipt of the Notice 

of Product Development (NOPD).

742 railroads ............... 0.25 data calls/documents.1 hour ................... 0.25 19 

(d)(1)(iii)—Technical consultation by FRA with the 

railroad on the design and planned development of 

the product.

742 railroads ............... 0.25 technical consultations.5 hours ................. 1.3 100 

(d)(1)(v)—Railroad petition to FRA for final approval 

of NOPD.

742 railroads ............... 0.25 petitions .............. 1 hour ................... 0.25 19 

(d)(2)(ii)—Response to FRA’s request for additional 

information associated with a petition for approval 

of PSP or PSP amendment.

742 railroads ............... 1 request .................... 50 hours ............... 50 3,850 

(e)—Comments to FRA on railroad informational filing or special approval petition.742 railroads ............... 0.5 comments/letters .. 10 hours ............... 5 385 

(h)(3)(i)—Railroad amendment to PSP ....................... 742 railroads ............... 2 amendments ............ 20 hours ............... 40 3,080 

(j)—Railroad field testing/information filing document 742 railroads ............... 1 field test document .. 100 hours ............. 100 7,700 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40176 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

CFR section/subject 59 Respondent universe Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

dollar cost 

equivalent 60

236.917(a)—Railroad retention of records: Results of 

tests and inspections specified in the PSP.

13 railroads with PSP 13 PSP safety results 160 hours ............. 2,080 160,160 

(b)—Railroad report that frequency of safety-relevant 

hazards exceeds threshold set forth in PSP.

13 railroads ................. 1 report ....................... 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 

(b)(3)—Railroad final report to FRA on the results of 

the analysis and countermeasures taken to reduce 

the frequency of safety-relevant hazards.

13 railroads ................. 1 report ....................... 10 hours ............... 10 770 

236.919(a)—Railroad Operations and Maintenance Manual (OMM).13 railroads ................. 1 OMM update ........... 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 

(b)—Plans for proper maintenance, repair, inspection, and testing of safety-critical products.13 railroads ................. 1 plan update ............. 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 

(c)—Documented hardware, software, and firmware 

revisions in OMM.

13 railroads ................. 1 revision .................... 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 

236.921 and 923(a)—Railroad Training and Qualification 

Program.

13 railroads ................. 1 program ................... 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 

236.923(b)—Training records retained in a designated location and available to FRA upon request.13 railroads ................. 350 records ................ 10 minutes ............ 58 4,466 

Form FRA F 6180.177—Statutory Notification of PTC 

System Failures (Under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4)) 61.

38 railroads ................. 144 reports/forms ....... 1 hour ................... 144 11,088 

236.1001(b)—A railroad’s additional or more stringent 

rules than prescribed under 49 CFR part 236, subpart I.

38 railroads ................. 1 rule or instruction .... 40 hours ............... 40 4,800 

236.1005(b)(4)(i)–(ii)—A railroad’s submission of estimated traffic projections for the next 5 years, to support a request, in a PTCIP or an RFA, not to implement 

a PTC system based on reductions in rail traffic.

The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021. 

(b)(4)(iii)—A railroad’s request for a de minimis exception, in a PTCIP or an RFA, based on a minimal quantity of PIH materials traffic.7 Class I railroads ...... 1 exception request .... 40 hours ............... 40 3,080 

(b)(5)—A railroad’s request to remove a line from its 

PTCIP based on the sale of the line to another 

railroad and any related request for FRA review 

from the acquiring railroad.

The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and 236.1021. 

(g)(1)(i)—A railroad’s request to temporarily reroute 

trains not equipped with a PTC system onto PTCequipped tracks and vice versa during certain 

emergencies.

38 railroads ................. 45 rerouting extension 

requests.

8 hours ................. 360 27,720 

(g)(1)(ii)—A railroad’s written or telephonic notice of 

the conditions necessitating emergency rerouting 

and other required information under 236.1005(i).

38 railroads ................. 45 written or telephonic notices.2 hours ................. 90 6,930 

(g)(2)—A railroad’s temporary rerouting request due 

to planned maintenance not exceeding 30 days.

38 railroads ................. 720 requests ............... 8 hours ................. 5,760 443,520 

(h)(1)—A response to any request for additional information from FRA, prior to commencing rerouting 

due to planned maintenance.

38 railroads ................. 10 requests ................. 2 hours ................. 20 1,540 

(h)(2)—A railroad’s request to temporarily reroute 

trains due to planned maintenance exceeding 30 

days.

38 railroads ................. 160 requests ............... 8 hours ................. 1,280 98,560 

236.1006(b)(4)(iii)(B)—A progress report due by December 31, 2020, and by December 31, 2022, from any 

Class II or III railroad utilizing a temporary exception 

under this section.

262 railroads ............... 5 reports ..................... 16 hours ............... 80 6,160 

(b)(5)(vii)—A railroad’s request to utilize different 

yard movement procedures, as part of a freight 

yard movements exception.

The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. 

236.1007(b)(1)—For any high-speed service over 90 

miles per hour (mph), a railroad’s PTC Safety Plan 

(PTCSP) must additionally establish that the PTC system was designed and will be operated to meet the 

fail-safe operation criteria in Appendix C.

The burden is accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. 

(c)—An HSR–125 document accompanying a host 

railroad’s PTCSP, for operations over 125 mph.

38 railroads ................. 1 HSR–125 document 3,200 hours .......... 3,200 384,000 

(c)(1)—A railroad’s request for approval to use foreign service data, prior to submission of a PTCSP.38 railroads ................. 0.3 requests ................ 8,000 hours .......... 2,667 205,359 

(d)—A railroad’s request in a PTCSP that FRA excuse compliance with one or more of this section’s 

requirements.

38 railroads ................. 1 request .................... 1,000 hours .......... 1,000 120,000 

236.1009(a)(2)—A PTCIP if a railroad becomes a host 

railroad of a main line requiring the implementation of a 

PTC system, including the information under 49 U.S.C. 

20157(a)(2) and 49 CFR 236.1011.

264 railroads ............... 1 PTCIP ...................... 535Note: ............... 535 64,200 

(a)(3)—Any new PTCIPs jointly filed by a host railroad and a tenant railroad.264 railroads ............... 1 joint PTCIP .............. 267 hours ............. 267 32,040 

(b)(1)—A host railroad’s submission, individually or 

jointly with a tenant railroad or PTC system supplier, of an unmodified Type Approval.

264 railroads ............... 1 document ................. 8 hours ................. 8 616 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40177 

CFR section/subject 59 Respondent universe Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

dollar cost 

equivalent 60

(b)(2)—A host railroad’s submission of a PTCDP 

with the information required under 49 CFR 

236.1013, requesting a Type Approval for a PTC 

system that either does not have a Type Approval 

or has a Type Approval that requires one or more 

variances.

264 railroads ............... 1 PTCDP .................... 2,000 hours .......... 2,000 154,000 

(d)—A host railroad’s submission of a PTCSP .......... The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015. 

(e)(3)—Any request for full or partial confidentiality of 

a PTCIP, Notice of Product Intent (NPI), PTCDP, 

or PTCSP.

38 railroads ................. 10 confidentiality requests.8 hours ................. 80 6,160 

(h)—Any responses or documents submitted in connection with FRA’s use of its authority to monitor, 

test, and inspect processes, procedures, facilities, 

documents, records, design and testing materials, 

artifacts, training materials and programs, and any 

other information used in the design, development, 

manufacture, test, implementation, and operation 

of the PTC system, including interviews with railroad personnel.

38 railroads ................. 36 interviews and documents.4 hours ................. 144 11,088 

(j)(2)(iii)—Any additional information provided in response to FRA’s consultations or inquiries about a 

PTCDP or PTCSP.

38 railroads ................. 1 set of additional information.400 hours ............. 400 30,800 

236.1011(a)–(b)—PTCIP content requirements ................ The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(a) and (e) and 236.1021. 

(e)—Any public comment on PTCIPs, NPIs, PTCDPs, 

and PTCSPs.

38 railroads ................. 2 public comments ..... 8 hours ................. 16 1,232 

236.1013, PTCDP and NPI content requirements ............. The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009(b), (c), and (e) and 236.1021. 

236.1015—Any new host railroad’s PTCSP meeting all 

content requirements under 49 CFR 236.1015.

264 railroads ............... 1 PTCSP .................... 8,000 hours .......... 8,000 616,000 

(g)—A PTCSP for a PTC system replacing an existing certified PTC system.38 railroads ................. 0.3 PTCSPs ................ 3,200 hours .......... 1,067 82,159 

(h)—A quantitative risk assessment, if FRA requires 

one to be submitted.

38 railroads ................. 0.3 assessments ........ 800 hours ............. 267 20,559 

236.1017(a)—An independent third-party assessment, if 

FRA requires one to be conducted and submitted.

38 railroads ................. 0.3 assessments ........ 1,600 hours .......... 533 63,960 

(b)—A railroad’s written request to confirm whether a 

specific entity qualifies as an independent third 

party.

38 railroads ................. 0.3 written requests .... 8 hours ................. 3 231 

—Further information provided to FRA upon request 38 railroads ................. 0.3 sets of additional 

information.

20 hours ............... 7 539 

(d)—A request not to provide certain documents otherwise required under Appendix F for an independent, third-party assessment.38 railroads ................. 0.3 requests ................ 20 hours ............... 7 539 

(e)—A request for FRA to accept information certified by a foreign regulatory entity for purposes of 

49 CFR 236.1017 and/or 236.1009(i).

38 railroads ................. 0.3 requests ................ 32 hours ............... 11 847 

236.1019(b)—A request for a passenger terminal main 

line track exception (MTEA).

38 railroads ................. 1 MTEA ...................... 160 hours ............. 160 12,320 

(c)(1)—A request for a limited operations exception 

(based on restricted speed, temporal separation, 

or a risk mitigation plan).

38 railroads ................. 1 request and/or plan 160 hours ............. 160 12,320 

(c)(2)—A request for a limited operations exception 

for a non-Class I, freight railroad’s track.

10 railroads ................. 1 request .................... 160 hours ............. 160 12,320 

(c)(3)—A request for a limited operations exception 

for a Class I railroad’s track.

7 railroads ................... 1 request .................... 160 hours ............. 160 12,320 

(d)—A railroad’s collision hazard analysis in support 

of an MTEA, if FRA requires one to be conducted 

and submitted.

38 railroads ................. 0.3 collision hazard 

analysis.

50 hours ............... 17 1,309 

(e)—Any temporal separation procedures utilized 

under the 49 CFR 236.1019(c)(1)(ii) exception.

The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1019(c)(1). 

236.1021(a)–(d)—Any RFA to a railroad’s PTCIP or 

PTCDP.

38 railroads ................. 10 RFAs ..................... 160 hours ............. 1,600 123,200 

(e)—Any public comments, if an RFA includes a request for approval of a discontinuance or material 

modification of a signal or train control system and 

a Federal Register notice is published.

5 interested parties ..... 10 RFA public comments.16 hours ............... 160 12,320 

(l)—Any jointly filed RFA to a PTCDP or PTCSP 

(* Note: This is a new proposed paragraph to authorize host railroads to file joint RFAs in certain 

cases, but such RFAs are already required under 

FRA’s existing regulations*).

The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1021(a)–(d) and (m). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40178 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

CFR section/subject 59 Respondent universe Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

dollar cost 

equivalent 60

(m)—Any RFA to a railroad’s PTCSP (* Note: Revised requirement. This is a new proposed paragraph with a simplified process governing RFAs to 

PTCSPs*).

38 railroads ................. 15 RFAs ..................... 80 hours ............... 1,200 s 92,400 

236.1023(a)—A railroad’s PTC Product Vendor List, 

which must be continually updated.

38 railroads ................. 2 updated lists ............ 8 hours ................. 16 1,232 

(b)(1)—All contractual arrangements between a railroad and its hardware and software suppliers or 

vendors for certain immediate notifications.

The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. 

(b)(2)–(3)—A vendor’s or supplier’s notification, upon 

receipt of a report of any safety-critical failure of its 

product, to any railroads using the product.

10 vendors or suppliers.10 notifications ........... 8 hours ................. 80 6,160 

(c)(1)–(2)—A railroad’s process and procedures for 

taking action upon being notified of a safety-critical 

failure or a safety-critical upgrade, patch, revision, 

repair, replacement, or modification, and a railroad’s configuration/revision control measures, set 

forth in its PTCSP.

The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 236.1021. 

(d)—A railroad’s submission, to the applicable vendor or supplier, of the railroad’s procedures for action upon notification of a safety-critical failure, upgrade, patch, or revision to the PTC system and 

actions to be taken until it is adjusted, repaired, or 

replaced.

38 railroads ................. 2.5 notifications .......... 16 hours ............... 40 3,080 

(e)—A railroad’s database of all safety-relevant hazards, which must be maintained after the PTC system is placed in service.38 railroads ................. 38 database updates .. 16 hours ............... 608 46,816 

(e)(1)—A railroad’s notification to the vendor or supplier and FRA if the frequency of a safety-relevant 

hazard exceeds the threshold set forth in the 

PTCDP and PTCSP, and about the failure, malfunction, or defective condition that decreased or 

eliminated the safety functionality.

38 railroads ................. 8 notifications ............. 8 hours ................. 64 4,928 

(e)(2)—Continual updates about any and all subsequent failures.38 railroads ................. 1 update ..................... 8 hours ................. 8 616 

(f)—Any notifications that must be submitted to FRA 

under 49 CFR 236.1023.

The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h). 

(g)—A railroad’s and vendor’s or supplier’s report, 

upon FRA request, about an investigation of an 

accident or service difficulty due to a manufacturing or design defect and their corrective actions.

38 railroads ................. 0.5 reports .................. 40 hours ............... 20 1,540 

(h)—A PTC system vendor’s or supplier’s reports of 

any safety-relevant failures, defective conditions, 

previously unidentified hazards, recommended 

mitigation actions, and any affected railroads.

10 vendors or suppliers.20 reports ................... 8 hours ................. 160 12,320 

(k)—A report of a failure of a PTC system resulting 

in a more favorable aspect than intended or other 

condition hazardous to the movement of a train, 

including the reports required under part 233.

The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1023(e), (g), and (h) and 49 CFR part 233. 

236.1029(b)(4)—A report of an en route failure, other failure, or cut out to a designated railroad officer of the 

host railroad.

150 host and tenant 

railroads.

1,000 reports .............. 30 minutes ............ 500 38,500 

(h)—Form FRA F 6180.152—Biannual Report of 

PTC System Performance (*Revised requirement 

and new form *) 62.

38 railroads ................. 73 reports ................... 48 hours ............... 3,504 269,808 

236.1033—Communications and security requirements ... The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015. 

236.1035(a)–(b)—A railroad’s request for authorization to 

field test an uncertified PTC system and any responses 

to FRA’s testing conditions.

38 railroads ................. 10 requests ................. 40 hours ............... 400 30,800 

236.1037(a)(1)–(2)—Records retention ............................. The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1009 and 236.1015. 

(a)(3)–(4)—Records retention ..................................... The burdens are accounted for under 49 CFR 236.1039 and 236.1043(b). 

(b)—Results of inspections and tests specified in a 

railroad’s PTCSP and PTCDP.

38 railroads ................. 800 records ................ 1 hour ................... 800 61,600 

(c)—A contractor’s records related to the testing, 

maintenance, or operation of a PTC system maintained at a designated office.

20 contractors ............. 1,600 records ............. 10 minutes ............ 267 20,559 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40179 

CFR section/subject 59 Respondent universe Total annual 

responses 

Average time per 

response 

Total annual 

burden hours 

Total annual 

dollar cost 

equivalent 60

(d)(3)—A railroad’s final report of the results of the 

analysis and countermeasures taken to reduce the 

frequency of safety-related hazards below the 

threshold set forth in the PTCSP.

38 railroads ................. 8 final reports ............. 160 hours ............. 1,280 98,560 

236.1039(a)–(c), (e)—A railroad’s PTC Operations and 

Maintenance Manual (OMM), which must be maintained and available to FRA upon request.

38 railroads ................. 2 OMM updates .......... 10 hours ............... 20 1,540 

(d)—A railroad’s identification of a PTC system’s 

safety-critical components, including spare equipment.

38 railroads ................. 1 identified new component.1 hour ................... 1 77 

236.1041(a)–(b) and 236.1043(a)—A railroad’s PTC 

Training and Qualification Program (i.e., a written plan).

38 railroads ................. 2 programs ................. 10 hours ............... 20 1,540 

236.1043(b)—Training records retained in a designated 

location and available to FRA upon request.

150 host and tenant 

railroads.

150 PTC training 

record databases.

1 hour ................... 150 11,550 

Total ............................................................................ N/A .............................. 4,567,897 responses .. N/A ....................... 50,969 4,250,307 

All estimates include the time for 

reviewing instructions; searching 

existing data sources; gathering or 

maintaining the needed data; and 

reviewing the information. For 

information or a copy of the paperwork 

package submitted to OMB, contact Ms. 

Hodan Wells, Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, at 202–493–0440. 

Organizations and individuals 

desiring to submit comments on the 

collection of information requirements 

should direct them via email to Ms. 

Wells at Hodan.Wells@dot.gov. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

requirements contained in this rule 

between 30 and 60 days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication. FRA is not authorized to 

impose a penalty on persons for 

violating information collection 

requirements that do not display a 

current OMB control number, if 

required. 

D. Federalism Implications 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

requires FRA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ See 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 

10, 1999). ‘‘Policies that have federalism 

implications’’ are defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

having ‘‘substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Id. Under 

Executive Order 13132, the agency may 

not issue a regulation with federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments or the agency consults 

with State and local government 

officials early in the process of 

developing the regulation. Where a 

regulation has federalism implications 

and preempts State law, the agency 

seeks to consult with State and local 

officials in the process of developing the 

regulation. 

FRA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria 

contained in Executive Order 13132. 

FRA has determined this final rule will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States or their political subdivisions; 

on the relationship between the Federal 

government and the States or their 

political subdivisions; or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. In addition, FRA 

has determined this final rule does not 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on State and local governments. 

Therefore, the consultation and funding 

requirements of Executive Order 13132 

do not apply. 

This final rule could have preemptive 

effect by the operation of law under a 

provision of the former Federal Railroad 

Safety Act of 1970, repealed and 

recodified at 49 U.S.C. 20106. Section 

20106 provides that States may not 

adopt or continue in effect any law, 

regulation, or order related to railroad 

safety or security that covers the subject 

matter of a regulation prescribed or 

order issued by the Secretary of 

Transportation (with respect to railroad 

safety matters) or the Secretary of 

Homeland Security (with respect to 

railroad security matters), except when 

the State law, regulation, or order 

qualifies under the ‘‘essentially local 

safety or security hazard’’ exception to 

section 20106. 

FRA has analyzed this final rule in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132. As explained above, FRA has 

determined that this final rule has no 

federalism implications, other than the 

possible preemption of State laws under 

Federal railroad safety statutes, 

specifically 49 U.S.C. 20106. 

Accordingly, FRA has determined that 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement for this final rule is 

not required. 

E. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

engaging in any standards or related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. This final rule is purely 

domestic in nature and is not expected 

to affect trade opportunities for U.S. 

firms doing business overseas or for 

foreign firms doing business in the 

United States. 

F. Environmental Impact 

FRA has evaluated this final rule 

consistent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the Council of 

Environmental Quality’s NEPA 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

parts 1500–1508, and FRA’s NEPA 

implementing regulations at 23 CFR part 

771, and determined that it is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review and therefore 

does not require the preparation of an 

environmental assessment (EA) or 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

Categorical exclusions (CEs) are actions 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40180 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

identified in an agency’s NEPA 

implementing regulations that do not 

normally have a significant impact on 

the environment and therefore do not 

require either an EA or EIS. See 40 CFR 

1508.4. Specifically, FRA has 

determined that this final rule is 

categorically excluded from detailed 

environmental review pursuant to 23 

CFR 771.116(c)(15), ‘‘Promulgation of 

rules, the issuance of policy statements, 

the waiver or modification of existing 

regulatory requirements, or 

discretionary approvals that do not 

result in significantly increased 

emissions of air or water pollutants or 

noise.’’ 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

revise FRA’s PTC regulations to reduce 

unnecessary costs and facilitate 

innovation, while improving FRA’s 

oversight. This final rule does not 

directly or indirectly impact any 

environmental resources and will not 

result in significantly increased 

emissions of air or water pollutants or 

noise. Instead, the final rule is likely to 

result in safety benefits. In analyzing the 

applicability of a CE, FRA must also 

consider whether unusual 

circumstances are present that would 

warrant a more detailed environmental 

review. See 23 CFR 771.116(b). FRA has 

concluded that no such unusual 

circumstances exist with respect to this 

regulation, and the final rule meets the 

requirements for categorical exclusion 

under 23 CFR 771.116(c)(15). 

Pursuant to Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act and 

its implementing regulations, FRA has 

determined this undertaking has no 

potential to affect historic properties. 

See 16 U.S.C. 470. FRA has also 

determined that this rulemaking does 

not approve a project resulting in a use 

of a resource protected by Section 4(f). 

See Department of Transportation Act of 

1966, as amended (Pub. L. 89–670, 80 

Stat. 931); 49 U.S.C. 303. 

G. Executive Order 12898 

(Environmental Justice) 

Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations,’’ and DOT 

Order 5610.2B, dated November 18, 

2020, require DOT agencies to consider 

environmental justice principles by 

identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations. The DOT Order instructs 

DOT agencies to address compliance 

with Executive Order 12898 and 

requirements within the DOT Order in 

rulemaking activities, as appropriate. 

FRA has evaluated this final rule and 

has determined it will not cause 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects 

on minority populations or low-income 

populations. 

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Under section 201 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal 

agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 

1532) further requires that ‘‘before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking that is likely to 

result in promulgation of any rule that 

includes any Federal mandate that may 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 

or more (adjusted annually for inflation) 

in any 1 year, and before promulgating 

any final rule for which a general notice 

of proposed rulemaking was published, 

the agency shall prepare a written 

statement’’ detailing the effect on State, 

local, and tribal governments and the 

private sector. This final rule will not 

result in the expenditure, in the 

aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more (as 

adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year, and thus preparation of such 

a statement is not required. 

I. Energy Impact 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ requires Federal 

agencies to prepare a Statement of 

Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant 

energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001). FRA has evaluated this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211 and 

determined that this final rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ within the 

meaning of Executive Order 13211. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 236 

Penalties, Positive train control, 

Railroad safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing, FRA 

is amending 49 CFR part 236, as 

follows: 

PART 236—RULES, STANDARDS, AND 

INSTRUCTIONS GOVERNING THE 

INSTALLATION, INSPECTION, 

MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR OF 

SIGNAL AND TRAIN CONTROL 

SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND 

APPLIANCES— 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 236 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20102–20103, 20107, 

20133, 20141, 20157, 20301–20303, 20306, 

20501–20505, 20701–20703, 21301–21302, 

21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 

1.89. 

■ 2. In § 236.1003 amend paragraph (b) 

by adding the definitions of ‘‘Cut out,’’ 

‘‘Initialization failure,’’ and 

‘‘Malfunction’’ in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 236.1003 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Cut out means any disabling of a PTC 

system, subsystem, or component en 

route (including when the PTC system 

cuts out on its own or a person cuts out 

the system with authorization), unless 

the cut out was necessary to exit PTCgoverned territory and enter non-PTC 

territory. 

* * * * * 

Initialization failure means any 

instance when a PTC system fails to 

activate on a locomotive or train, unless 

the PTC system successfully activates 

during a subsequent attempt in the same 

location or before entering PTCgoverned territory. For the types of PTC 

systems that do not initialize by design, 

a failed departure test is considered an 

initialization failure for purposes of the 

reporting requirement under 

§ 236.1029(h), unless the PTC system 

successfully passes the departure test 

during a subsequent attempt in the same 

location or before entering PTCgoverned territory. 

* * * * * 

Malfunction means any instance 

when a PTC system, subsystem, or 

component fails to perform the 

functions mandated under 49 U.S.C. 

20157(i)(5), this subpart, or the 

applicable host railroad’s PTCSP. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 236.1021 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d) 

introductory text, and (d)(4); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (d)(7); and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (l) and (m). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 40181 

§ 236.1021 Discontinuances, material 

modifications, and amendments. 

(a) No changes, as defined by this 

section, to a PTCIP or PTCDP may be 

made unless: 

(1) The railroad files a request for 

amendment (RFA) to the applicable 

PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate 

Administrator; and 

(2) The Associate Administrator 

approves the RFA. 

* * * * * 

(c) In lieu of a separate filing under 

part 235 of this chapter, a railroad may 

request approval of a discontinuance or 

material modification of a signal or train 

control system by filing an RFA to its 

PTCIP or PTCDP with the Associate 

Administrator. 

(d) FRA will not approve an RFA to 

a PTCIP or PTCDP unless the request 

includes: 

* * * * * 

(4) The changes to the PTCIP or 

PTCDP, as applicable; 

* * * * * 

(l) Any RFA to a PTCDP or PTCSP 

pursuant to this section may be 

submitted jointly with other host 

railroads utilizing the same type of PTC 

system. However, only host railroads 

with the same PTC System Certification 

classification under § 236.1015(e) may 

jointly file an RFA to their PTCSPs. Any 

joint RFA to multiple host railroads’ 

PTCSPs must include the information 

required under paragraph (m) of this 

section. The joint RFA must also 

include the written confirmation and 

statement specified under paragraphs 

(m)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this section from 

each host railroad jointly filing the RFA. 

(m) No changes, as specified under 

paragraph (h)(3) or (4) of this section, 

may be made to an FRA-certified PTC 

system or an FRA-approved PTCSP 

unless the host railroad first complies 

with the following process: 

(1) The host railroad revises its PTCSP 

to account for each proposed change to 

its PTC system and summarizes such 

changes in a chronological table of 

revisions at the beginning of its PTCSP; 

(2) The host railroad electronically 

submits the following information in an 

RFA to the Director of FRA’s Office of 

Railroad Systems and Technology: 

(i) A summary of the proposed 

changes to any safety-critical elements 

of a PTC system, including a summary 

of how the changes to the PTC system 

would affect its safety-critical 

functionality, how any new hazards 

have been addressed and mitigated, 

whether each change is a planned 

change that was previously included in 

all required analysis under § 236.1015 

or an unplanned change, and the reason 

for the proposed changes, including 

whether the changes are necessary to 

address or resolve an emergency or 

urgent issue; 

(ii) Any associated software release 

notes; 

(iii) A confirmation that the host 

railroad has notified any applicable 

tenant railroads of the proposed 

changes, any associated effect on the 

tenant railroads’ operations, and any 

actions the tenant railroads must take in 

accordance with the configuration 

control measures set forth in the host 

railroad’s PTCSP; 

(iv) A statement from a qualified 

representative of the host railroad, 

verifying that the modified PTC system 

would meet all technical requirements 

under this subpart, provide an 

equivalent or greater level of safety than 

the existing PTC system, and not 

adversely impact interoperability with 

any tenant railroads; and 

(v) Any other information that FRA 

requests; and 

(3) A host railroad shall not make any 

changes, as specified under paragraph 

(h)(3) or (4) of this section, to its PTC 

system until the Director of FRA’s Office 

of Railroad Systems and Technology 

approves the RFA. 

(i) FRA will approve, approve with 

conditions, or deny the RFA within 45 

days of the date on which the RFA was 

filed under paragraph (m)(2) of this 

section. 

(ii) FRA reserves the right to notify a 

railroad that changes may proceed prior 

to the 45-day mark, including in an 

emergency or under other circumstances 

necessitating a railroad’s immediate 

implementation of the proposed 

changes to its PTC system. 

(iii) FRA may require a railroad to 

modify its RFA or its PTC system to the 

extent necessary to ensure safety or 

compliance with the requirements of 

this part. 

(iv) Following any FRA denial of an 

RFA, each applicable railroad is 

prohibited from making the proposed 

changes to its PTC system until the 

railroad both sufficiently addresses 

FRA’s questions, comments, and 

concerns and obtains FRA’s approval. 

Consistent with paragraph (l) of this 

section, any host railroads utilizing the 

same type of PTC system, including the 

same certification classification under 

§ 236.1015(e), may jointly submit 

information to address FRA’s questions, 

comments, and concerns following any 

denial of an RFA under this section. 

■ 4. Amend § 236.1029 by revising 

paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 236.1029 PTC system use and failures. 

* * * * * 

(h) Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance. (1) Each host railroad 

subject to 49 U.S.C. 20157 or this 

subpart shall electronically submit a 

Biannual Report of PTC System 

Performance on Form FRA F 6180.152, 

containing the following information for 

the applicable reporting period, 

separated by the host railroad, each 

applicable tenant railroad, and each 

PTC-governed track segment (e.g., 

territory, subdivision, district, main 

line, branch, or corridor), consistent 

with the railroad’s PTC Implementation 

Plan: 

(i) The total number of PTC system 

initialization failures, and subtotals 

identifying the number of initialization 

failures where the source or cause was 

the onboard subsystem, wayside 

subsystem, communications subsystem, 

back office subsystem, or a non-PTC 

component; 

(ii) The total number of PTC system 

cut outs, and subtotals identifying the 

number of cut outs where the source or 

cause was the onboard subsystem, 

wayside subsystem, communications 

subsystem, back office subsystem, or a 

non-PTC component; 

(iii) The total number of PTC system 

malfunctions, and subtotals identifying 

the number of malfunctions where the 

source or cause was the onboard 

subsystem, wayside subsystem, 

communications subsystem, back office 

subsystem, or a non-PTC component; 

(iv) The total number of enforcements 

by the PTC system; 

(v) The number of enforcements by 

the PTC system in which an accident or 

incident was prevented; 

(vi) The number of scheduled 

attempts at initialization of the PTC 

system; and 

(vii) The number of train miles 

governed by the PTC system. 

(2) A host railroad’s Biannual Report 

of PTC System Performance (Form FRA 

F 6180.152) shall also include a 

summary of any actions the host 

railroad and its tenant railroads are 

taking to reduce the frequency and rate 

of initialization failures, cut outs, and 

malfunctions, such as any actions to 

correct or eliminate systemic issues and 

specific problems. 

(3) Each host railroad shall 

electronically submit a Biannual Report 

of PTC System Performance (Form FRA 

F 6180.152) to FRA by the following due 

dates: July 31 (covering the period from 

January 1 to June 30), and January 31 

(covering the period from July 1 to 

December 31 of the prior calendar year). 

(4) Each tenant railroad that operates 

on a host railroad’s PTC-governed main 

line(s), unless the tenant railroad is 

currently subject to an exception under 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
40182 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 27, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 236.1006(b)(4) or (5), shall submit the 

information required under paragraphs 

(h)(1) and (2) of this section to each 

applicable host railroad on a continuous 

basis. 

(5) Any railroad operating a PTC 

system classified under FRA Type 

Approval Nos. FRA–TA–2010–001 or 

FRA–TA–2013–003 must begin 

submitting the metric required under 

paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this section not 

later than January 31, 2023. 

Issued in Washington, DC. 

Amitabha Bose, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15544 Filed 7–26–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 210505–0101; RTID 0648– 

XB216] 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Modification of the West Coast 

Commercial Salmon Fisheries; 

Inseason Action #19–#21 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Inseason modification of 2021 

management measures. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces three 

inseason actions in the 2021 ocean 

salmon fisheries. These inseason actions 

modify the commercial salmon troll 

fisheries in the area from the U.S./ 

Canada border to the U.S./Mexico 

border. 

DATES: The effective dates for the 

inseason actions are set out in this 

document under the heading Inseason 

Actions, and remain in effect until 

superseded or modified. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shannon Penna at 562–676–2148, 

Email: Shannon.penna@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In the 2021 annual management 

measures for ocean salmon fisheries (86 

FR 26425, May 14, 2021), NMFS 

announced management measures for 

the commercial and recreational 

fisheries in the area from the U.S./ 

Canada border to the U.S./Mexico 

border, effective from 0001 hours Pacific 

Daylight Time (PDT), May 16, 2021, 

until the effective date of the 2022 

management measures, as published in 

the Federal Register. NMFS is 

authorized to implement inseason 

management actions to modify fishing 

seasons and quotas as necessary to 

provide fishing opportunity while 

meeting management objectives for the 

affected species (50 CFR 660.409). 

Inseason actions in the salmon fishery 

may be taken directly by NMFS (50 CFR 

660.409(a)—Fixed inseason 

management provisions) or upon 

consultation with the Chairman of the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) and the appropriate State 

Directors (50 CFR 660.409(b)—Flexible 

inseason management provisions). 

Management of the salmon fisheries is 

generally divided into two geographic 

areas: North of Cape Falcon (NOF) 

(U.S./Canada border to Cape Falcon, 

OR), and south of Cape Falcon (SOF) 

(Cape Falcon, OR, to the U.S./Mexico 

border). The actions described in this 

document affected both the NOF and 

SOF commercial salmon troll fishery as 

set out under the heading Inseason 

Actions. 

Consultation on these inseason 

actions occurred on June 25, 2021. 

Representatives from NMFS, 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, and Council staff 

participated in the consultation. 

These inseason actions were 

announced on NMFS’ telephone hotline 

and U.S. Coast Guard radio broadcast on 

June 28, 2021 (50 CFR 660.411(a)(2)). 

Inseason Actions 

Inseason Action #19 

Description of the action: Retention of 

halibut caught incidental to the 

commercial salmon troll fishery (U.S./ 

Canada border to U.S./Mexico border) is 

extended past June 30, 2021, and 

remains in effect until superseded. 

Effective date: Inseason action #19 

took effect on July 1, 2021, and remains 

in effect until superseded. 

Reason and authorization: The 2021 

salmon management measures (86 FR 

26425, May 14, 2021) authorize the 

retention of Pacific halibut caught 

incidental to the commercial salmon 

troll fishery in 2021 during April, May, 

and June, and after June 30, 2021, if 

quota remains and announced on the 

NMFS telephone hotline for salmon 

fisheries. The 2021 incidental Pacific 

halibut quota for the commercial salmon 

troll fishery is 45,198 pounds (head off) 

(20,501 Kilograms (kg)). Landings 

reported by the states, through June 25, 

2021, totaled 5,170 pounds (head off) 

(2,345 kg), leaving 88.6 percent of the 

quota unharvested. 

The NMFS West Coast Region 

Regional Administrator (RA) considered 

the landed catch of Pacific halibut to 

date and the amount of quota remaining, 

and determined that this inseason 

action was necessary to meet 

management goals set preseason. 

Inseason modification of the species 

that may be caught and landed during 

specific seasons is authorized by 50 CFR 

660.409(b)(1)(ii). 

Inseason Action #20 

Description of the action: The July 

2021 quota for the commercial salmon 

troll fishery from Humbug Mountain, 

OR, to the Oregon/California border 

(Oregon Klamath Management Zone 

(KMZ)) is increased from 200 Chinook 

salmon to 216 Chinook salmon through 

an impact-neutral rollover of unused 

quota from the June commercial salmon 

troll fishery in the same area. 

Effective date: Inseason action #20 

took effect on July 1, 2021, and remains 

in effect until superseded. 

Reason and authorization: The 2021 

commercial salmon troll fishery in the 

Oregon KMZ includes two quota 

managed seasons: June (300 Chinook 

salmon) and July (200 Chinook salmon) 

(86 FR 26425, May 14, 2021). The first 

quota season opened on June 1, 2021, 

and closed on June 16, 2021 (86 FR 

34161, June 29, 2021) to prevent 

exceeding the 300 Chinook salmon 

quota. After the closure, 24 Chinook 

salmon remained uncaught. The annual 

management measures (86 FR 26425, 

May 14, 2021) provide that any 

remaining portion of Chinook salmon 

quotas in this fishery may be transferred 

inseason on an impact neutral basis to 

the next open quota period. The 

Council’s Salmon Technical Team 

calculated the impact neutral transfer of 

24 Chinook salmon from the June 

season to the July season would result 

in adding 16 Chinook salmon to the July 

quota, resulting in an adjusted July 

quota of 216 Chinook salmon. This 

quota transfer is impact neutral for 

spawning escapement goals for Klamath 

River fall-run Chinook salmon (KRFC), 

and Sacramento River fall-run Chinook 

salmon stocks and for KRFC age-4 ocean 

harvest rate limits. The quota transfer 

also preserves 50/50 KRFC harvest 

sharing between non-tribal and Klamath 

River tribal fisheries. This action did not 

increase overall 2021 Chinook salmon 

quota in the SOF commercial salmon 

troll fishery. 

The NMFS West Coast Region RA 

considered the landings of Chinook 

salmon in the SOF commercial salmon 

fishery, fishery effort occurring to date 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1